Cryptography and Network Security: Principles and Practice: United States Edition [5 ed.] 0136097049, 9780136097044

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Contents
Notation
Preface
About the Author
Chapter 0 Reader’s Guide
0.1 Outline of This Book
0.2 A Roadmap for Readers and Instructors
0.3 Internet and Web Resources
0.4 Standards
Chapter 1 Overview
1.1 Computer Security Concepts
1.2 The OSI Security Architecture
1.3 Security Attacks
1.4 Security Services
1.5 Security Mechanisms
1.6 A Model for Network Security
1.7 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
1.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
PART ONE: SYMMETRIC CIPHERS
Chapter 2 Classical Encryption Techniques
2.1 Symmetric Cipher Model
2.2 Substitution Techniques
2.3 Transposition Techniques
2.4 Rotor Machines
2.5 Steganography
2.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
2.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Chapter 3 Block Ciphers and the Data Encryption Standard
3.1 Block Cipher Principles
3.2 The Data Encryption Standard (DES)
3.3 A DES Example
3.4 The Strength of DES
3.5 Differential and Linear Cryptanalysis
3.6 Block Cipher Design Principles
3.7 Recommended Reading and Web Site
3.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Chapter 4 Basic Concepts in Number Theory and Finite Fields
4.1 Divisibility and the Division Algorithm
4.2 The Euclidean Algorithm
4.3 Modular Arithmetic
4.4 Groups, Rings, and Fields
4.5 Finite Fields of the Form GF(p)
4.6 Polynomial Arithmetic
4.7 Finite Fields of the Form GF(2[sup(n)])
4.8 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
4.9 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Appendix 4A: The Meaning of mod
Chapter 5 Advanced Encryption Standard
5.1 The Origins AES
5.2 AES Structure
5.3 AES Round Functions
5.4 AES Key Expansion
5.5 An AES Example
5.6 AES Implementation
5.7 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
5.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Appendix 5A: Polynomials with Coefficients in GF(2[sup(8)])
Appendix 5B: Simplified AES
Chapter 6 Block Cipher Operation
6.1 Multiple Encryption and Triple DES
6.2 Electronic Codebook Mode
6.3 Cipher Block Chaining Mode
6.4 Cipher Feedback Mode
6.5 Output Feedback Mode
6.6 Counter Mode
6.7 XTS Mode for Block-Oriented Storage Devices
6.8 Recommended Web Site
6.9 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Chapter 7 Pseudorandom Number Generation and Stream Ciphers
7.1 Principles of Pseudorandom Number Generation
7.2 Pseudorandom Number Generators
7.3 Pseudorandom Number Generation Using a Block Cipher
7.4 Stream Ciphers
7.5 RC4
7.6 True Random Numbers
7.7 Recommended Reading
7.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
PART TWO: ASYMMETRIC CIPHERS
Chapter 8 More Number Theory
8.1 Prime Numbers¹
8.2 Fermat’s and Euler’s Theorems
8.3 Testing for Primality
8.4 The Chinese Remainder Theorem
8.5 Discrete Logarithms
8.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
8.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Chapter 9 Public-Key Cryptography and RSA
9.1 Principles of Public-Key Cryptosystems
9.2 The RSA Algorithm
9.3 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
9.4 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Appendix 9A: Proof of the RSA Algorithm
Appendix 9B: The Complexity of Algorithms
Chapter 10 Other Public-Key Cryptosystems
10.1 Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange
10.2 ElGamal Cryptosystem
10.3 Elliptic Curve Arithmetic
10.4 Elliptic Curve Cryptography
10.5 Pseudorandom Number Generation Based on an Asymmetric Cipher
10.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
10.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
PART THREE: CRYPTOGRAPHIC DATA INTEGRITY ALGORITHMS
Chapter 11 Cryptographic Hash Functions
11.1 Applications of Cryptographic Hash Functions
11.2 Two Simple Hash Functions
11.3 Requirements and Security
11.4 Hash Functions Based on Cipher Block Chaining
11.5 Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA)
11.6 SHA-3
11.7 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
11.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Appendix 11A: Mathematical Basis of Birthday Attack
Chapter 12 Message Authentication Codes
12.1 Message Authentication Requirements
12.2 Message Authentication Functions
12.3 Message Authentication Codes
12.4 Security of MACs
12.5 MACs Based on Hash Functions: HMAC
12.6 MACs Based on Block Ciphers: DAA and CMAC
12.7 Authenticated Encryption: CCM and GCM
12.8 Pseudorandom Number Generation Using Hash Functions and MACs
12.9 Recommended Reading
12.10 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Chapter 13 Digital Signatures
13.1 Digital Signatures
13.2 ElGamal Digital Signature Scheme
13.3 Schnorr Digital Signature Scheme
13.4 Digital Signature Standard (DSS)
13.5 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
13.6 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
PART FOUR: MUTUAL TRUST
Chapter 14 Key Management and Distribution
14.1 Symmetric Key Distribution Using Symmetric Encryption
14.2 Symmetric Key Distribution Using Asymmetric Encryption
14.3 Distribution of Public Keys
14.4 X.509 Certificates
14.5 Public Key Infrastructure
14.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
14.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Chapter 15 User Authentication Protocols
15.1 Remote User Authentication Principles
15.2 Remote User Authentication Using Symmetric Encryption
15.3 Kerberos
15.4 Remote User Authentication Using Asymmetric Encryption
15.5 Federated Identity Management
15.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
15.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Appendix 15A: Kerberos Encryption Techniques
PART FIVE: NETWORK AND INTERNET SECURITY
Chapter 16 Transport-Level Security
16.1 Web Security Issues
16.2 Secure Sockets Layer (SSL)
16.3 Transport Layer Security (TLS)
16.4 HTTPS
16.5 Secure Shell (SSH)
16.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
16.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Chapter 17 Wireless Network Security
17.1 IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN Overview
17.2 IEEE 802.11i Wireless LAN Security
17.3 Wireless Application Protocol Overview
17.4 Wireless Transport Layer Security
17.5 WAP End-to-End Security
17.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
17.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Chapter 18 Electronic Mail Security
18.1 Pretty Good Privacy (PGP)
18.2 S/MIME
18.3 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)
18.4 Recommended Web Sites
18.5 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Appendix 18A: Radix-64 Conversion
Chapter 19 IP Security
19.1 IP Security Overview
19.2 IP Security Policy
19.3 Encapsulating Security Payload
19.4 Combining Security Associations
19.5 Internet Key Exchange
19.6 Cryptographic Suites
19.7 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
19.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Projects for Teaching Cryptography and Network Security
A.1 Sage Computer Algebra Projects
A.2 Hacking Project
A.3 Block Cipher Projects
A.4 Laboratory Exercises
A.5 Research Projects
A.6 Programming Projects
A.7 Practical Security Assessments
A.8 Writing Assignments
A.9 Reading/Report Assignments
Appendix B: Sage Examples
B.1 Chapter 2: Classical Encryption Techniques
B.2 Chapter 3: Block Ciphers and the Data Encryption Standard
B.3 Chapter 4: Basic Concepts in Number Theory and Finite Fields
B.4 Chapter 5: Advanced Encryption Standard
B.5 Chapter 6: Pseudorandom Number Generation and Stream Ciphers
B.6 Chapter 8: Number Theory
B.6 Chapter 9: Public-Key Cryptography and RSA
B.7 Chapter 10: Other Public-Key Cryptosystems
B.8 Chapter 11: Cryptographic Hash Functions
B.9 Chapter 13: Digital Signatures
References
Index
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
PART SIX: SYSTEM SECURITY
Chapter 20 Intruders
20.1 Intruders
20.2 Intrusion Detection
20.3 Password Management
20.4 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
20.5 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Appendix 20A: The Base-Rate Fallacy
Chapter 21 Malicious Software
21.1 Types of Malicious Software
21.2 Viruses
21.3 Virus Countermeasures
21.4 Worms
21.5 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks
21.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
21.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Chapter 22 Firewalls
22.1 The Need for Firewalls
22.2 Firewall Characteristics
22.3 Types of Firewalls
22.4 Firewall Basing
22.5 Firewall Location and Configurations
22.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
22.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
PART SEVEN: LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES
Chapter 23 Legal and Ethical Issues
23.1 Cybercrime and Computer Crime
23.2 Intellectual Property
23.3 Privacy
23.4 Ethical Issues
23.5 Recommended Reading and Web Sites
23.6 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems
Appendix C: Sage Problems
C.1 Getting Started with Sage
C.2 Programming with Sage
C.3 Chapter 2: Classical Encryption Techniques
C.4 Chapter 3: Block Ciphers and the Data Encryption Standard
C.5 Chapter 4: Basic Concepts in Number Theory and Finite Fields
C.6 Chapter 5: Advanced Encryption Standard
C.7 Chapter 7: Pseudorandom Number Generation and Stream Ciphers
C.8 Chapter 8: Number Theory
C.9 Chapter 9: Public-Key Cryptography and RSA
C.10 Chapter 10: Other Public-Key Cryptosystems
C.11 Chapter 11: Cryptographic Hash Functions
C.12 Chapter 13: Digital Signatures
Glossary
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
K
L
M
N
O
P
R
S
T
U
V
W
Z

Citation preview

THE WILLIAM STALLINGS BOOKS ON COMPUTER DATA AND COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS, EIGHTH EDITION A comprehensive survey that has become the standard in the field, covering (1) data communications, including transmission, media, signal encoding, link control, and multiplexing; (2) communication networks, including circuit- and packet-switched, frame relay, ATM, and LANs; (3) the TCP/IP protocol suite, including IPv6, TCP, MIME, and HTTP, as well as a detailed treatment of network security. Received the 2007 Text and Academic Authors Association (TAA) award for the best Computer Science and Engineering Textbook of the year. ISBN 0-13-243310-9 COMPUTER ORGANIZATION AND ARCHITECTURE, EIGHTH EDITION A unified view of this broad field. Covers fundamentals such as CPU, control unit, microprogramming, instruction set, I/O, and memory. Also covers advanced topics such as RISC, superscalar, and parallel organization. Fourth and fifth editions received the TAA award for the best Computer Science and Engineering Textbook of the year. ISBN 978-0-13-607373-4 OPERATING SYSTEMS, SIXTH EDITION A state-of-the art survey of operating system principles. Covers fundamental technology as well as contemporary design issues, such as threads, microkernels, SMPs, real-time systems, multiprocessor scheduling, embedded OSs, distributed systems, clusters, security, and object-oriented design. Received the 2009 Text and Academic Authors Association (TAA) award for the best Computer Science and Engineering Textbook of the year. ISBN 978-0-13-600632-9 BUSINESS DATA COMMUNICATIONS, SIXTH EDITION A comprehensive presentation of data communications and telecommunications from a business perspective. Covers voice, data, image, and video communications and applications technology and includes a number of case studies. ISBN 978-0-13-606741-2 COMPUTER NETWORKS WITH INTERNET PROTOCOLS AND TECHNOLOGY An up-to-date survey of developments in the area of Internet-based protocols and algorithms. Using a top-down approach, this book covers applications, transport layer, Internet QoS, Internet routing, data link layer and computer networks, security, and network management. ISBN 0-13141098-9

AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY NETWORK SECURITY ESSENTIALS, FOURTH EDITION A tutorial and survey on network security technology. The book covers important network security tools and applications, including S/MIME, IP Security, Kerberos, SSL/TLS, SET, and X509v3. In addition, methods for countering hackers and viruses are explored. COMPUTER SECURITY (with Lawrie Brown) A comprehensive treatment of computer security technology, including algorithms, protocols, and applications. Covers cryptography, authentication, access control, database security, intrusion detection and prevention, malicious software, denial of service, firewalls, software security, physical security, human factors, auditing, legal and ethical aspects, and trusted systems. Received the 2008 Text and Academic Authors Association (TAA) award for the best Computer Science and Engineering Textbook of the year. ISBN 0-13-600424-5 WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, Second Edition A comprehensive, state-of-the art survey. Covers fundamental wireless communications topics, including antennas and propagation, signal encoding techniques, spread spectrum, and error correction techniques. Examines satellite, cellular, wireless local loop networks and wireless LANs, including Bluetooth and 802.11. Covers Mobile IP and WAP. ISBN 0-13-191835-4 HIGH-SPEED NETWORKS AND INTERNETS, SECOND EDITION A state-of-the art survey of high-speed networks. Topics covered include TCP congestion control, ATM traffic management, Internet traffic management, differentiated and integrated services, Internet routing protocols and multicast routing protocols, resource reservation and RSVP, and lossless and lossy compression. Examines important topic of self-similar data traffic. ISBN 0-13-03221-0

CRYPTOGRAPHY AND NETWORK SECURITY PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE FIFTH EDITION

William Stallings

Prentice Hall Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto Delhi Mexico City Sao Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul Singapore Taipei Tokyo

Vice President and Editorial Director, ECS: Marcia Horton Executive Editor: Tracy Dunkelberger Associate Editor: Melinda Haggerty Editorial Assistant: Allison Michael Senior Managing Editor: Scott Disanno Production Editor: Rose Kernan Senior Operations Supervisor: Alan Fischer Operations Specialist: Lisa McDowell Cover Design: Black Horse Designs

Art Director: Kristine Carney Director, Image Resource Center: Melinda Patelli Manager, Rights and Permissions: Zina Arabia Senior Marketing Manager: Erin Davis Manager,Visual Research: Beth Brenzel Manager, Cover Visual Research & Permissions: Karen Sanatar Composition: Integra Printer/Binder: Edwards Brothers

Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on appropriate page within text. If you purchased this book within the United States or Canada you should be aware that it has been wrongfully imported without the approval of the Publisher or the Author.

Copyright © 2011, 2006 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America.This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise.To obtain permission(s) to use material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department, 1 Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, NY 07458 Many of the designations by manufacturers and seller to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim, the designations have been printed in initial caps or all caps. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data On File

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN 10: 0-13-609704-9 ISBN 13: 978-0-13-609704-4

To Antigone never dull never boring the smartest person I know

This page intentionally left blank

CONTENTS Notation xiii Preface xv About the Author xxiii Chapter 0 Reader’s Guide 1 0.1 Outline of This Book 2 0.2 A Roadmap for Readers and Instructors 2 0.3 Internet and Web Resources 4 0.4 Standards 5 Chapter 1 Overview 7 1.1 Computer Security Concepts 9 1.2 The OSI Security Architecture 14 1.3 Security Attacks 15 1.4 Security Services 19 1.5 Security Mechanisms 23 1.6 A Model for Network Security 25 1.7 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 27 1.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 29 PART ONE SYMMETRIC CIPHERS 31 Chapter 2 Classical Encryption Techniques 31 2.1 Symmetric Cipher Model 33 2.2 Substitution Techniques 38 2.3 Transposition Techniques 53 2.4 Rotor Machines 55 2.5 Steganography 57 2.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 59 2.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 60 Chapter 3 Block Ciphers and the Data Encryption Standard 66 3.1 Block Cipher Principles 68 3.2 The Data Encryption Standard (DES) 77 3.3 A DES Example 85 3.4 The Strength of DES 88 3.5 Differential and Linear Cryptanalysis 89 3.6 Block Cipher Design Principles 92 3.7 Recommended Reading and Web Site 96 3.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 97 Chapter 4 Basic Concepts in Number Theory and Finite Fields 101 4.1 Divisibility and the Division Algorithm 103 4.2 The Euclidean Algorithm 105

v

vi

CONTENTS

4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9

Modular Arithmetic 108 Groups, Rings, and Fields 116 Finite Fields of the Form GF(p) 120 Polynomial Arithmetic 122 Finite Fields of the Form GF(2n) 129 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 141 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 141 Appendix 4A The Meaning of mod 144

Chapter 5 Advanced Encryption Standard 47 5.1 The Origins AES 148 5.2 AES Structure 150 5.3 AES Round Functions 155 5.4 AES Key Expansion 166 5.5 An AES Example 169 5.6 AES Implementation 174 5.7 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 178 5.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 179 Appendix 5A Polynomials with Coefficients in GF(28) 180 Appendix 5B Simplified AES 183 Chapter 6 Block Cipher Operation 192 6.1 Multiple Encryption and Triple DES 193 6.2 Electronic Codebook Mode 198 6.3 Cipher Block Chaining Mode 201 6.4 Cipher Feedback Mode 203 6.5 Output Feedback Mode 205 6.6 Counter Mode 206 6.7 XTS Mode for Block-Oriented Storage Devices 210 6.8 Recommended Web Site 214 6.9 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 214 Chapter 7 Pseudorandom Number Generation and Stream Ciphers 218 7.1 Principles of Pseudorandom Number Generation 219 7.2 Pseudorandom Number Generators 226 7.3 Pseudorandom Number Generation Using a Block Cipher 229 7.4 Stream Ciphers 232 7.5 RC4 234 7.6 True Random Numbers 237 7.7 Recommended Reading 238 7.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 239 PART TWO ASYMMETRIC CIPHERS 243 Chapter 8 More Number Theory 243 8.1 Prime Numbers 245 8.2 Fermat’s and Euler’s Theorems 248 8.3 Testing for Primality 251 8.4 The Chinese Remainder Theorem 254

CONTENTS

8.5 8.6 8.7

Discrete Logarithms 257 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 262 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 263

Chapter 9 Public-Key Cryptography and RSA 266 9.1 Principles of Public-Key Cryptosystems 269 9.2 The RSA Algorithm 277 9.3 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 291 9.4 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 291 Appendix 9A Proof of the RSA Algorithm 296 Appendix 9B The Complexity of Algorithms 297 Chapter 10 Other Public-Key Cryptosystems 300 10.1 Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange 301 10.2 ElGamal Cryptosystem 305 10.3 Elliptic Curve Arithmetic 308 10.4 Elliptic Curve Cryptography 317 10.5 Pseudorandom Number Generation Based on an Asymmetric Cipher 321 10.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 323 10.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 324 PART THREE CRYPTOGRAPHIC DATA INTEGRITY ALGORITHMS 327 Chapter 11 Cryptographic Hash Functions 327 11.1 Applications of Cryptographic Hash Functions 329 11.2 Two Simple Hash Functions 333 11.3 Requirements and Security 335 11.4 Hash Functions Based on Cipher Block Chaining 341 11.5 Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA) 342 11.6 SHA-3 352 11.7 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 353 11.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 353 Appendix 11A Mathematical Basis of Birthday Attack 356 Chapter 12 Message Authentication Codes 362 12.1 Message Authentication Requirements 364 12.2 Message Authentication Functions 365 12.3 Message Authentication Codes 372 12.4 Security of MACs 374 12.5 MACs Based on Hash Functions: HMAC 375 12.6 MACs Based on Block Ciphers: DAA and CMAC 380 12.7 Authenticated Encryption: CCM and GCM 383 12.8 Pseudorandom Number Generation Using Hash Functions and MACs 389 12.9 Recommended Reading 392 12.10 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 393 Chapter 13 Digital Signatures 395 13.1 Digital Signatures 396 13.2 ElGamal Digital Signature Scheme 400

vii

viii

CONTENTS

13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6

Schnorr Digital Signature Scheme 402 Digital Signature Standard (DSS) 403 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 406 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 407

PART FOUR MUTUAL TRUST 410 Chapter 14 Key Management and Distribution 410 14.1 Symmetric Key Distribution Using Symmetric Encryption 412 14.2 Symmetric Key Distribution Using Asymmetric Encryption 421 14.3 Distribution of Public Keys 423 14.4 X.509 Certificates 428 14.5 Public Key Infrastructure 436 14.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 438 14.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 439 Chapter 15 User Authentication Protocols 444 15.1 Remote User Authentication Principles 445 15.2 Remote User Authentication Using Symmetric Encryption 448 15.3 Kerberos 452 15.4 Remote User Authentication Using Asymmetric Encryption 470 15.5 Federated Identity Management 472 15.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 478 15.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 479 Appendix 15A Kerberos Encryption Techniques 481 PART FIVE NETWORK AND INTERNET SECURITY 485 Chapter 16 Transport-Level Security 485 16.1 Web Security Issues 486 16.2 Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) 489 16.3 Transport Layer Security (TLS) 502 16.4 HTTPS 506 16.5 Secure Shell (SSH) 508 16.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 519 16.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 519 Chapter 17 Wireless Network Security 521 17.1 IEEE 802.11 Wireless LAN Overview 523 17.2 IEEE 802.11i Wireless LAN Security 529 17.3 Wireless Application Protocol Overview 543 17.4 Wireless Transport Layer Security 550 17.5 WAP End-to-End Security 560 17.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 563 17.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 563 Chapter 18 Electronic Mail Security 567 18.1 Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) 568 18.2 S/MIME 587

CONTENTS

18.3 18.4 18.5

DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) 603 Recommended Web Sites 610 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 611 Appendix 18A Radix-64 Conversion 612

Chapter 19 IP Security 615 19.1 IP Security Overview 616 19.2 IP Security Policy 622 19.3 Encapsulating Security Payload 627 19.4 Combining Security Associations 634 19.5 Internet Key Exchange 638 19.6 Cryptographic Suites 647 19.7 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 648 19.8 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 649 APPENDICES 651 Appendix A Projects for Teaching Cryptography and Network Security 651 A.1 Sage Computer Algebra Projects 652 A.2 Hacking Project 653 A.3 Block Cipher Projects 653 A.4 Laboratory Exercises 654 A.5 Research Projects 654 A.6 Programming Projects 655 A.7 Practical Security Assessments 655 A.8 Writing Assignments 655 A.9 Reading/Report Assignments 656 Appendix B Sage Examples 657 B.1 Chapter 2: Classical Encryption Techniques 659 B.2 Chapter 3: Block Ciphers and the Data Encryption Standard 662 B.3 Chapter 4: Basic Concepts in Number Theory and Finite Fields 666 B.4 Chapter 5:Advanced Encryption Standard 673 B.5 Chapter 6: Pseudorandom Number Generation and Stream Ciphers 678 B.6 Chapter 8: Number Theory 680 B.6 Chapter 9: Public-Key Cryptography and RSA 685 B.7 Chapter 10: Other Public-Key Cryptosystems 688 B.8 Chapter 11: Cryptographic Hash Functions 693 B.9 Chapter 13: Digital Signatures 695 References 699 Index 711 ONLINE CHAPTERS PART SIX Chapter 20 20.1 20.2

SYSTEM SECURITY Intruders Intruders Intrusion Detection

ix

x

CONTENTS

Password Management Recommended Reading and Web Sites Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems Appendix 20A The Base-Rate Fallacy Chapter 21 Malicious Software 21.1 Types of Malicious Software 21.2 Viruses 21.3 Virus Countermeasures 21.4 Worms 21.5 Distributed Denial of Service Attacks 21.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 21.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems Chapter 22 Firewalls 22.1 The Need for Firewalls 22.2 Firewall Characteristics 22.3 Types of Firewalls 22.4 Firewall Basing 22.5 Firewall Location and Configurations 22.6 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 22.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems 20.3 20.4 20.5

PART SEVEN LEGAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES Chapter 23 Legal and Ethical Issues 23.1 Cybercrime and Computer Crime 23.2 Intellectual Property 23.3 Privacy 23.4 Ethical Issues 23.5 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 23.6 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems ONLINE APPENDICES WilliamStallings.com/Crypto/Crypto5e.html Appendix C Sage Problems C.1 Getting Started with Sage C.2 Programming with Sage C.3 Chapter 2: Classical Encryption Techniques C.4 Chapter 3: Block Ciphers and the Data Encryption Standard C.5 Chapter 4: Basic Concepts in Number Theory and Finite Fields C.6 Chapter 5:Advanced Encryption Standard C.7 Chapter 7: Pseudorandom Number Generation and Stream Ciphers C.8 Chapter 8: Number Theory C.9 Chapter 9: Public-Key Cryptography and RSA C.10 Chapter 10: Other Public-Key Cryptosystems C.11 Chapter 11: Cryptographic Hash Functions C.12 Chapter 13: Digital Signatures

CONTENTS

Appendix D Standards and Standards-Setting Organizations D.1 The Importance of Standards D.2 Internet Standards and the Internet Society D.3 National Institute of Standards and Technology Appendix E Basic Concepts from Linear Algebra E.1 Operations on Vectors and Matrices E.2 Linear Algebra Operations over Zn Appendix F.1 F.2 F.3 Appendix G.1 G.2 G.3 G.4 G.5 Appendix H.1 H.2

F Measures of Security and Secrecy Perfect Secrecy Information and Entropy Entropy and Secrecy G Simplified DES Overview S-DES Key Generation S-DES Encryption Analysis of Simplified DES Relationship to DES H Evaluation Criteria for AES The Origins of AES AES Evaluation

Appendix I.1 I.2 Appendix J.1 J.2 J.3 Appendix Appendix L.1 L.2 L.3 L.4 L.5 L.6 Appendix M.1 M.2 M.3 M.4 M.5

I More on Simplified AES Arithmetic in GF(24) The Mix Column Function J Knapsack Public-Key Algorithm The Knapsack Problem The Knapsack Cryptosystem Example K Proof of the Digital Signature Algorithm L TCP/IP and OSI Protocols and Protocol Architectures The TCP/IP Protocol Architecture The Role of an Internet Protocol IPv4 IPv6 The OSI Protocol Architecture M Java Cryptographic APIs Introduction JCA and JCE Architecture JCA Classes JCE Classes Conclusion and References

xi

xii

CONTENTS

M.6 M.7 Appendix N.1 N.2 N.3 Appendix O.1 O.2 Appendix P.1 P.2 Appendix Glossary

Using the Cryptographic Application JCA/JCE Cryptography Example N The Whirlpool Hash Function Whirlpool Hash Structure Block Cipher W Performance of Whirlpool O Data Compression Using ZIP Compression Algorithm Decompression Algorithm P PGP Random Number Generation True Random Numbers Pseudorandom Numbers Q International Reference Alphabet

NOTATION Even the natives have difficulty mastering this peculiar vocabulary. —The Golden Bough, Sir James George Frazer Symbol

Expression

Meaning

D, K

D1K, Y2

Symmetric decryption of ciphertext Y using secret key K

D, PRa

D1PRa, Y2

Asymmetric decryption of ciphertext Y using A’s private key PRa

D, PUa

D1PUa, Y2

Asymmetric decryption of ciphertext Y using A’s public key PUa

E, K

E1K, X2

Symmetric encryption of plaintext X using secret key K

E, PRa

E(PRa, X)

Asymmetric encryption of plaintext X using A’s private key PRa

E, PUa

E(PUa, X)

Asymmetric encryption of plaintext X using A’s public key PUa

K

Secret key

PRa

Private key of user A

PUa

Public key of user A

MAC, K

MAC(K, X)

Message authentication code of message X using secret key K

GF( p)

The finite field of order p, where p is prime. The field is defined as the set Zp together with the arithmetic operations modulo p.

GF(2n)

The finite field of order 2n

Zn

Set of nonnegative integers less than n

gcd

gcd(i, j)

Greatest common divisor; the largest positive integer that divides both i and j with no remainder on division.

mod

a mod m

Remainder after division of a by m

mod, K

a K b (mod m)

a mod m = b mod m

mod, [

a [ b (mod m)

a mod m Z b mod m

dlog

dloga, p(b)

Discrete logarithm of the number b for the base a (mod p)

w

f(n)

The number of positive integers less than n and relatively prime to n. This is Euler’s totient function.

©

a ai

n i=1 n

ß

q ai i=1

a1 + a2 + Á + an a1 * a2 * Á * an

xiii

xiv

NOTATION

|

i|j

i divides j, which means that there is no remainder when j is divided by i

|, |

|a|

Absolute value of a

||

x || y

x concatenated with y

L

x L y

x is approximately equal to y

䊝

x䊝y

:, ;

:x ;

The largest integer less than or equal to x

僆

x僆S

The element x is contained in the set S.

·

A · (a1, a2,

The integer A corresponds to the sequence of integers (a1, a2, Á , ak)

Á , ak2

Exclusive-OR of x and y for single-bit variables; Bitwise exclusive-OR of x and y for multiple-bit variables

PREFACE “The tie, if I might suggest it, sir, a shade more tightly knotted. One aims at the perfect butterfly effect. If you will permit me —” “What does it matter, Jeeves, at a time like this? Do you realize that Mr. Little’s domestic happiness is hanging in the scale?” “There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.” —Very Good, Jeeves! P. G. Wodehouse In this age of universal electronic connectivity, of viruses and hackers, of electronic eavesdropping and electronic fraud, there is indeed no time at which security does not matter. Two trends have come together to make the topic of this book of vital interest. First, the explosive growth in computer systems and their interconnections via networks has increased the dependence of both organizations and individuals on the information stored and communicated using these systems. This, in turn, has led to a heightened awareness of the need to protect data and resources from disclosure, to guarantee the authenticity of data and messages, and to protect systems from network-based attacks. Second, the disciplines of cryptography and network security have matured, leading to the development of practical, readily available applications to enforce network security.

OBJECTIVES It is the purpose of this book to provide a practical survey of both the principles and practice of cryptography and network security. In the first part of the book, the basic issues to be addressed by a network security capability are explored by providing a tutorial and survey of cryptography and network security technology. The latter part of the book deals with the practice of network security: practical applications that have been implemented and are in use to provide network security. The subject, and therefore this book, draws on a variety of disciplines. In particular, it is impossible to appreciate the significance of some of the techniques discussed in this book without a basic understanding of number theory and some results from probability theory. Nevertheless, an attempt has been made to make the book self-contained. The book presents not only the basic mathematical results that are needed but provides the reader with an intuitive understanding of those results. Such background material is introduced as needed. This approach helps to motivate the material that is introduced, and the author considers this preferable to simply presenting all of the mathematical material in a lump at the beginning of the book.

INTENDED AUDIENCE The book is intended for both academic and a professional audiences. As a textbook, it is intended as a one-semester undergraduate course in cryptography and network security for computer science, computer engineering, and electrical engineering majors. It covers the

xv

xvi

PREFACE

material in IAS2 Security Mechanisms, a core area in the Information Technology body of knowledge; NET4 Security, another core area in the Information Technology body of knowledge; and IT311, Cryptography, an advanced course; these subject areas are part of the ACM/IEEE Computer Society Computing Curricula 2005. The book also serves as a basic reference volume and is suitable for self-study.

PLAN OF THE BOOK The book is divided into seven parts (see Chapter 0 for an overview): • • • • • • •

Symmetric Ciphers Asymmetric Ciphers Cryptographic Data Integrity Algorithms Mutual Trust Network and Internet Security System Security Legal and Ethical Issues

The book includes a number of pedagogic features, including the use of the computer algebra system Sage and numerous figures and tables to clarify the discussions. Each chapter includes a list of key words, review questions, homework problems, suggestions for further reading, and recommended Web sites. The book also includes an extensive glossary, a list of frequently used acronyms, and a bibliography. In addition, a test bank is available to instructors.

ONLINE DOCUMENTS FOR STUDENTS For this new edition, a tremendous amount of original supporting material has been made available online, in the following categories. • Online chapters: To limit the size and cost of the book, four chapters of the book are provided in PDF format. This includes three chapters on computer security and one on legal and ethical issues. The chapters are listed in this book’s table of contents. • Online appendices: There are numerous interesting topics that support material found in the text but whose inclusion is not warranted in the printed text. A total of fifteen online appendices cover these topics for the interested student. The appendices are listed in this book’s table of contents. • Homework problems and solutions: To aid the student in understanding the material, a separate set of homework problems with solutions are available. These enable the students to test their understanding of the text. • Key papers: Twenty-four papers from the professional literature, many hard to find, are provided for further reading. • Supporting documents: A variety of other useful documents are referenced in the text and provided online. • Sage code: The Sage code from the examples in Appendix B in case the student wants to play around with the examples.

PREFACE

xvii

Purchasing this textbook now grants the reader six months of access to this online material. See the access card bound into the front of this book for details.

INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT MATERIALS To support instructors, the following materials are provided: • Solutions Manual: Solutions to end-of-chapter Review Questions and Problems. • Projects Manual: Suggested project assignments for all of the project categories listed below. • PowerPoint Slides: A set of slides covering all chapters, suitable for use in lecturing. • PDF Files: Reproductions of all figures and tables from the book. • Test Bank: A chapter-by-chapter set of questions. All of these support materials are available at the Instructor Resource Center (IRC) for this textbook, which can be reached via personhighered.com/stallings or by clicking on the button labeled “Book Info and More Instructor Resources” at this book’s Web Site WilliamStallings.com/Crypto/Crypto5e.html. To gain access to the IRC, please contact your local Prentice Hall sales representative via pearsonhighered.com/ educator/replocator/requestSalesRep.page or call Prentice Hall Faculty Services at 1-800-526-0485.

INTERNET SERVICES FOR INSTRUCTORS AND STUDENTS There is a Web site for this book that provides support for students and instructors. The site includes links to other relevant sites, transparency masters of figures and tables in the book in PDF (Adobe Acrobat) format, and PowerPoint slides. The Web page is at WilliamStallings.com/Crypto/Crypto5e.html. For more information, see Chapter 0. New to this edition is a set of homework problems with solutions available at this Web site. Students can enhance their understanding of the material by working out the solutions to these problems and then checking their answers. An Internet mailing list has been set up so that instructors using this book can exchange information, suggestions, and questions with each other and with the author. As soon as typos or other errors are discovered, an errata list for this book will be available at WilliamStallings.com. In addition, the Computer Science Student Resource site at WilliamStallings.com/StudentSupport.html provides documents, information, and useful links for computer science students and professionals.

PROJECTS AND OTHER STUDENT EXERCISES For many instructors, an important component of a cryptography or security course is a project or set of projects by which the student gets hands-on experience to reinforce concepts from the text. This book provides an unparalleled degree of support, including a projects component in the course. The IRC not only includes guidance on how to assign and structure

xviii

PREFACE

the projects, but it also includes a set of project assignments that covers a broad range of topics from the text. • Sage Projects: Described in the next section. • Hacking Project: This exercise is designed to illuminate the key issues in intrusion detection and prevention. • Block Cipher Projects: This is a lab that explores the operation of the AES encryption algorithm by tracing its execution, computing one round by hand, and then exploring the various block cipher modes of use. The lab also covers DES. In both cases, an online Java applet is used (or can be downloaded) to execute AES or DES. • Lab Exercises: A series of projects that involve programming and experimenting with concepts from the book. • Research Projects: A series of research assignments that instruct the student to research a particular topic on the Internet and write a report. • Programming Projects: A series of programming projects that cover a broad range of topics and that can be implemented in any suitable language on any platform. • Practical Security Assessments: A set of exercises to examine current infrastructure and practices of an existing organization. • Writing Assignments: A set of suggested writing assignments organized by chapter. • Reading/Report Assignments: A list of papers in the literature — one for each chapter — that can be assigned for the student to read and then write a short report. See Appendix A for details.

THE SAGE COMPUTER ALGEBRA SYSTEM One of the most important new features for this edition is the use of Sage for cryptographic examples and homework assignments. Sage is an open-source, multiplatform, freeware package that implements a very powerful, flexible, and easily learned mathematics and computer algebra system. Unlike competing systems (such as Mathematica, Maple, and MATLAB), there are no licensing agreements or fees involved. Thus, Sage can be made available on computers and networks at school, and students can individually download the software to their own personal computers for use at home. Another advantage of using Sage is that students learn a powerful, flexible tool that can be used for virtually any mathematical application, not just cryptography. The use of Sage can make a significant difference to the teaching of the mathematics of cryptographic algorithms. This book provides a large number of examples of the use of Sage covering many cryptographic concepts in Appendix B. Appendix C lists exercises in each of these topic areas to enable the student to gain hands-on experience with cryptographic algorithms. This appendix is available to instructors at the IRC for this book. Appendix C includes a section on how to download and get started with Sage, a section on programming with Sage, and includes exercises that can be assigned to students in the following categories: • Chapter 2 — Classical Encryption: Affine ciphers and the Hill cipher. • Chapter 3 — Block Ciphers And The Data Encryption Standard: Exercises based on SDES.

PREFACE

xix

• Chapter 4 — Basic Concepts In Number Theory And Finite Fields: Euclidean and extended Euclidean algorithms, polynomial arithmetic, and GF(24). • Chapter 5 — Advanced Encryption Standard: Exercise based on SAES. • Chapter 6 — Pseudorandom Number Generation And Stream Ciphers: Blum Blum Shub, linear congruential generator, and ANSI X9.17 PRNG. • Chapter 8 — Number Theory: Euler’s Totient function, Miller Rabin, factoring, modular exponentiation, discrete logarithm, and Chinese remainder theorem. • Chapter 9 — Public-Key Cryptography And RSA: RSA encrypt/decrypt and signing. • Chapter 10 — Other Public-Key Cryptosystems: Diffie-Hellman, elliptic curve • Chapter 11 — Cryptographic Hash Functions: Number-theoretic hash function. • Chapter 13 — Digital Signatures: DSA.

WHAT’S NEW IN THE FIFTH EDITION The changes for this new edition of Cryptography and Network Security are more substantial and comprehensive than those for any previous revision. In the three years since the fourth edition of this book was published, the field has seen continued innovations and improvements. In this new edition, I try to capture these changes while maintaining a broad and comprehensive coverage of the entire field. To begin this process of revision, the fourth edition was extensively reviewed by a number of professors who teach the subject. In addition, a number of professionals working in the field reviewed individual chapters. The result is that, in many places, the narrative has been clarified and tightened, and illustrations have been improved. Also, a large number of new “field-tested” problems have been added. One obvious change to the book is a revision in the organization, which makes for a clearer presentation of related topics. There is a new Part Three, which pulls together all of the material on cryptographic algorithms for data integrity, including cryptographic hash functions, message authentication codes, and digital signatures. The material on key management and exchange, previously distributed in several places in the book, is now organized in a single chapter, as is the material on user authentication. Beyond these refinements to improve pedagogy and user friendliness, there have been major substantive changes throughout the book. Highlights include: • Euclidean and extended Euclidean algorithms (revised): These algorithms are important for numerous cryptographic functions and algorithms. The material on the Euclidean and extended Euclidean algorithms for integers and for polynomials has been completely rewritten to provide a clearer and more systematic treatment. • Advanced Encryption Standard (revised): AES has emerged as the dominant symmetric encryption algorithm, used in a wide variety of applications. Accordingly, this edition has dramatically expanded the resources for learning about and understanding this important standard. The chapter on AES has been revised and expanded, with additional illustrations and a detailed example, to clarify the presentation. Examples and assignments using Sage have been added. And the book now includes an AES cryptography lab, which enables the student to gain hands-on experience with AES cipher internals and modes of use. The lab makes use of an AES calculator applet, available at this book’s Web site, that can encrypt or decrypt test data values using the AES block cipher.

xx

PREFACE

• Block Cipher Modes of Operation (revised): The material in Chapter 6 on modes of operation has been expanded and the illustrations redrawn for greater clarity. • Pseudorandom number generation and pseudorandom functions (revised): The treatment of this important topic has been expanded, with the addition of new material on the use of symmetric encryption algorithms and cryptographic hash functions to construct pseudorandom functions. • ElGamal encryption and digital signature (new): New sections have been added on this popular public-key algorithm. • Cryptographic hash functions and message authentication codes (revised): The material on hash functions and MAC has been revised and reorganized to provide a clearer and more systematic treatment. • SHA-3 (new): Although the SHA-3 algorithm has yet to be selected, it is important for the student to have a grasp of the design criteria for this forthcoming cryptographic hash standard. • Authenticated encryption (new): The book covers the important new algorithms, CCM and GCM, which simultaneously provide confidentiality and data integrity. • Key management and distribution (revised): In the fourth edition, these topics were scattered across three chapters. In the fifth edition, the material is revised and consolidated into a single chapter to provide a unified, systematic treatment. • Remote user authentication (revised): In the fourth edition, this topic was covered in parts of two chapters. In the fifth edition the material is revised and consolidated into a single chapter to provide a unified, systematic treatment. • Federated identity (new): A new section covers this common identity management scheme across multiple enterprises and numerous applications and supporting many thousands, even millions, of users. • HTTPS (new): A new section covers this protocol for providing secure communication between Web browser and Web server. • Secure shell (new): SSH, one of the most pervasive applications of encryption technology, is covered in a new section. • DomainKeys Identified Mail (new): A new section covers DKIM, which has become the standard means of authenticating e-mail to counter spam. • Wireless network security (new): A new chapter covers this important area of network security. The chapter deals with the IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) security standard for wireless local area networks; and the Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) security standard for communication between a mobile Web browser and a Web server. • IPsec (revised): The chapter on IPsec has been almost completely rewritten. It now covers IPsecv3 and IKEv2. In addition, the presentation has been revised to improve clarity and breadth. • Legal and ethical issues (new): A new online chapter covers these important topics. • Online appendices (new): Fifteen online appendices provide additional breadth and depth for the interested student on a variety of topics. • Sage examples and problems (new): As mentioned, this new edition makes use of the open-source, freeware Sage computer algebra application to enable students to have hands-on experience with a variety of cryptographic algorithms.

PREFACE

xxi

With each new edition it is a struggle to maintain a reasonable page count while adding new material. In part, this objective is realized by eliminating obsolete material and tightening the narrative. For this edition, chapters and appendices that are of less general interest have been moved online as individual PDF files. This has allowed an expansion of material without the corresponding increase in size and price.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This new edition has benefited from review by a number of people who gave generously of their time and expertise. The following people reviewed all or a large part of the manuscript: Marius Zimand (Towson State University), Shambhu Upadhyaya (University of Buffalo), Nan Zhang (George Washington University), Dongwan Shin (New Mexico Tech), Michael Kain (Drexel University), William Bard (University of Texas), David Arnold (Baylor University), Edward Allen (Wake Forest University), Michael Goodrich (UC-Irvine), Xunhua Wang (James Madison University), Xianyang Li (Illinois Institute of Technology), and Paul Jenkins (Brigham Young University). Thanks also to the many people who provided detailed technical reviews of one or more chapters: Martin Bealby, Martin Hlavac (Department of Algebra, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic), Martin Rublik (BSP Consulting and University of Economics in Bratislava), Rafael Lara (President of Venezuela’s Association for Information Security and Cryptography Research), Amitabh Saxena, and Michael Spratte (Hewlett-Packard Company). I would especially like to thank Nikhil Bhargava (IIT Delhi) for providing detailed reviews of various chapters of the book. Joan Daemen kindly reviewed the chapter on AES. Vincent Rijmen reviewed the material on Whirlpool. Edward F. Schaefer reviewed the material on simplified AES. Nikhil Bhargava (IIT Delhi) developed the set of online homework problems and solutions. Dan Shumow of Microsoft and the University of Washington developed all of the Sage examples and assignments in Appendices B and C. Professor Sreekanth Malladi of Dakota State University developed the hacking exercises. Lawrie Brown of the Australian Defence Force Academy provided the AES/DES block cipher projects and the security assessment assignments. Sanjay Rao and Ruben Torres of Purdue University developed the laboratory exercises that appear in the IRC. The following people contributed project assignments that appear in the instructor’s supplement: Henning Schulzrinne (Columbia University); Cetin Kaya Koc (Oregon State University); and David Balenson (Trusted Information Systems and George Washington University). Kim McLaughlin developed the test bank. Finally, I would like to thank the many people responsible for the publication of the book, all of whom did their usual excellent job. This includes my editor Tracy Dunkelberger, her assistant Melinda Hagerty, and production manager Rose Kernan. Also, Jake Warde of Warde Publishers managed the reviews. With all this assistance, little remains for which I can take full credit. However, I am proud to say that, with no help whatsoever, I selected all of the quotations.

This page intentionally left blank

ABOUT THE AUTHOR William Stallings has made a unique contribution to understanding the broad sweep of technical developments in computer security, computer networking and computer architecture. He has authored 17 titles, and counting revised editions, a total of 42 books on various aspects of these subjects. His writings have appeared in numerous ACM and IEEE publications, including the Proceedings of the IEEE and ACM Computing Reviews. He has 11 times received the award for the best Computer Science textbook of the year from the Text and Academic Authors Association. In over 30 years in the field, he has been a technical contributor, technical manager, and an executive with several high-technology firms. He has designed and implemented both TCP/IP-based and OSI-based protocol suites on a variety of computers and operating systems, ranging from microcomputers to mainframes. As a consultant, he has advised government agencies, computer and software vendors, and major users on the design, selection, and use of networking software and products. He created and maintains the Computer Science Student Resource Site at WilliamStalIings.com/StudentSupport.html.This site provides documents and links on a variety of subjects of general interest to computer science students (and professionals). He is a member of the editorial board of Cryptologia, a scholarly journal devoted to all aspects of cryptology. Dr. Stallings holds a PhD from M.I.T. in Computer Science and a B.S. from Notre Dame in electrical engineering.

xxiii

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER

READER’S GUIDE 0.1

Outline of This Book

0.2

A Roadmap for Readers and Instructors Subject Matter Topic Ordering

0.3

Internet and Web Resources Web Sites for This Book Other Web Sites Newsgroups and Forums

0.4

Standards

1

2

CHAPTER 0 / READER’S GUIDE

The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy’s not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable. —The Art of War, Sun Tzu This book, with its accompanying Web site, covers a lot of material. Here we give the reader an overview.

0.1 OUTLINE OF THIS BOOK Following an introductory chapter, Chapter 1, the book is organized into seven parts: Part One: Symmetric Ciphers: Provides a survey of symmetric encryption, including classical and modern algorithms.The emphasis is on the two most important algorithms, the Data Encryption Standard (DES) and the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES). This part also covers the most important stream encryption algorithm,RC4,and the important topic of pseudorandom number generation. Part Two: Asymmetric Ciphers: Provides a survey of public-key algorithms, including RSA (Rivest-Shamir-Adelman) and elliptic curve. Part Three: Cryptographic Data Integrity Algorithms: Begins with a survey of cryptographic hash functions. This part then covers two approaches to data integrity that rely on cryptographic hash functions: message authentication codes and digital signatures. Part Four: Mutual Trust: Covers key management and key distribution topics and then covers user authentication techniques. Part Five: Network Security and Internet Security: Examines the use of cryptographic algorithms and security protocols to provide security over networks and the Internet. Topics covered include transport-level security, wireless network security, e-mail security, and IP security. Part Six: System Security: Deals with security facilities designed to protect a computer system from security threats, including intruders, viruses, and worms. This part also looks at firewall technology. Part Seven: Legal and Ethical Issues: Deals with the legal and ethical issues related to computer and network security. A number of online appendices at this book’s Web site cover additional topics relevant to the book.

0.2 A ROADMAP FOR READERS AND INSTRUCTORS Subject Matter The material in this book is organized into four broad categories: • Cryptographic algorithms: This is the study of techniques for ensuring the secrecy and/or authenticity of information. The three main areas of study in

0.2 / A ROADMAP FOR READERS AND INSTRUCTORS

3

this category are: (1) symmetric encryption, (2) asymmetric encryption, and (3) cryptographic hash functions, with the related topics of message authentication codes and digital signatures. • Mutual trust: This is the study of techniques and algorithms for providing mutual trust in two main areas. First, key management and distribution deals with establishing trust in the encryption keys used between two communicating entities. Second, user authentication deals with establishing trust in the identity of a communicating partner. • Network security: This area covers the use of cryptographic algorithms in network protocols and network applications. • Computer security: In this book, we use this term to refer to the security of computers against intruders (e.g., hackers) and malicious software (e.g., viruses). Typically, the computer to be secured is attached to a network, and the bulk of the threats arise from the network. The first two parts of the book deal with two distinct cryptographic approaches: symmetric cryptographic algorithms and public-key, or asymmetric, cryptographic algorithms. Symmetric algorithms make use of a single key shared by two parties. Public-key algorithms make use of two keys: a private key known only to one party and a public key available to other parties.

Topic Ordering This book covers a lot of material. For the instructor or reader who wishes a shorter treatment, there are a number of opportunities. To thoroughly cover the material in the first three parts, the chapters should be read in sequence. With the exception of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), none of the material in Part One requires any special mathematical background. To understand AES, it is necessary to have some understanding of finite fields. In turn, an understanding of finite fields requires a basic background in prime numbers and modular arithmetic. Accordingly, Chapter 4 covers all of these mathematical preliminaries just prior to their use in Chapter 5 on AES. Thus, if Chapter 5 is skipped, it is safe to skip Chapter 4 as well. Chapter 2 introduces some concepts that are useful in later chapters of Part One. However, for the reader whose sole interest is contemporary cryptography, this chapter can be quickly skimmed. The two most important symmetric cryptographic algorithms are DES and AES, which are covered in Chapters 3 and 5, respectively. Chapter 6 covers specific techniques for using what are known as block symmetric ciphers. Chapter 7 covers stream ciphers and random number generation. These two chapters may be skipped on an initial reading, but this material is referenced in later parts of the book. For Part Two, the only additional mathematical background that is needed is in the area of number theory, which is covered in Chapter 8. The reader who has skipped Chapters 4 and 5 should first review the material on Sections 4.1 through 4.3. The two most widely used general-purpose public-key algorithms are RSA and elliptic curve, with RSA enjoying wider acceptance. The reader may wish to skip the material on elliptic curve cryptography in Chapter 10, at least on a first reading.

4

CHAPTER 0 / READER’S GUIDE

In Part Three, the topics in Sections 12.6 and 12.7 are of lesser importance. Parts Four, Five, and Six are relatively independent of each other and can be read in any order. These three parts assume a basic understanding of the material in Parts One, Two, and Three. The four chapters of Part Five, on network and Internet security, are relatively independent of one another and can be read in any order.

0.3 INTERNET AND WEB RESOURCES There are a number of resources available on the Internet and the Web to support this book and to help readers keep up with developments in this field.

Web Sites for This Book There is a Web page for this book at WilliamStallings.com/Crypto/Crypto5e.html. The site includes the following: • Useful Web sites: There are links to other relevant Web sites, organized by chapter, including the sites listed throughout this book. • Errata sheet: An errata list for this book will be maintained and updated as needed. Please e-mail any errors that you spot to me. Errata sheets for my other books are at WilliamStallings.com. • Figures: All of the figures in this book are provided in PDF (Adobe Acrobat) format. • Tables: All of the tables in this book are provided in PDF format. • Slides: A set of PowerPoint slides are provided, organized by chapter. • Cryptography and network security courses: There are links to home pages for courses based on this book; these pages may be useful to other instructors in providing ideas about how to structure their course. I also maintain the Computer Science Student Resource Site, at William Stallings.com/StudentSupport.html. The purpose of this site is to provide documents, information, and links for computer science students and professionals. Links and documents are organized into six categories: • Math: Includes a basic math refresher, a queuing analysis primer, a number system primer, and links to numerous math sites • How-to: Advice and guidance for solving homework problems, writing technical reports, and preparing technical presentations • Research resources: Links to important collections of papers, technical reports, and bibliographies • Miscellaneous: A variety of other useful documents and links. • Computer science careers: Useful links and documents for those considering a career in computer science. • Humor and other diversions: You have to take your mind off your work once in a while.

0.4 / STANDARDS

5

Other Web Sites There are numerous Web sites that provide information related to the topics of this book. In subsequent chapters, pointers to specific Web sites can be found in the Recommended Reading and Web Sites section. Because the addresses for Web sites tend to change frequently, the book does not provide URLs. For all of the Web sites listed in the book, the appropriate link can be found at this book’s Web site. Other links not mentioned in this book will be added to the Web site over time.

Newsgroups and Forums A number of USENET newsgroups are devoted to some aspect of cryptography or network security. As with virtually all USENET groups, there is a high noise-to-signal ratio, but it is worth experimenting to see if any meet your needs. The most relevant are as follows: • sci.crypt.research: The best group to follow. This is a moderated newsgroup that deals with research topics; postings must have some relationship to the technical aspects of cryptology. • sci.crypt: A general discussion of cryptology and related topics. • sci.crypt.random-numbers: A discussion of cryptographic-strength random number generators. • alt.security: A general discussion of security topics. • comp.security.misc: A general discussion of computer security topics. • • • •

comp.security.firewalls: A discussion of firewall products and technology. comp.security.announce: News and announcements from CERT. comp.risks: A discussion of risks to the public from computers and users. comp.virus: A moderated discussion of computer viruses.

In addition, there are a number of forums dealing with cryptography available on the Internet. Among the most worthwhile are • Security and Cryptography forum: Sponsored by DevShed. Discusses issues related to coding, server applications, network protection, data protection, firewalls, ciphers, and the like. • Cryptography forum: On Topix. Fairly good focus on technical issues. • Security forums: On WindowsSecurity.com. Broad range of forums, including cryptographic theory, cryptographic software, firewalls, and malware. Links to these forums are provided at this book’s Web site.

0.4 STANDARDS Many of the security techniques and applications described in this book have been specified as standards. Additionally, standards have been developed to cover management practices and the overall architecture of security mechanisms

6

CHAPTER 0 / READER’S GUIDE

and services. Throughout this book, we describe the most important standards in use or being developed for various aspects of cryptography and network security. Various organizations have been involved in the development or promotion of these standards. The most important (in the current context) of these organizations are as follows: • National Institute of Standards and Technology: NIST is a U.S. federal agency that deals with measurement science, standards, and technology related to U.S. government use and to the promotion of U.S. private-sector innovation. Despite its national scope, NIST Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) and Special Publications (SP) have a worldwide impact. • Internet Society: ISOC is a professional membership society with worldwide organizational and individual membership. It provides leadership in addressing issues that confront the future of the Internet and is the organization home for the groups responsible for Internet infrastructure standards, including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). These organizations develop Internet standards and related specifications, all of which are published as Requests for Comments (RFCs). • ITU-T: The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is an international organization within the United Nations System in which governments and the private sector coordinate global telecom networks and services The ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) is one of the three sectors of the ITU. ITU-T’s mission is the production of standards covering all fields of telecommunications. ITU-T standards are referred to as Recommendations. • ISO: The International Organization for Standardization (ISO)1 is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies from more than 140 countries, one from each country. ISO is a nongovernmental organization that promotes the development of standardization and related activities with a view to facilitating the international exchange of goods and services and to developing cooperation in the spheres of intellectual, scientific, technological, and economic activity. ISO’s work results in international agreements that are published as International Standards. A more detailed discussion of these organizations is contained in Appendix D.

1

ISO is not an acronym (in which case it would be IOS), but it is a word derived from the Greek, meaning equal.

CHAPTER

OVERVIEW 1.1

Computer Security Concepts A Definition of Computer Security Examples The Challenges of Computer Security

1.2

The OSI Security Architecture

1.3

Security Attacks Passive Attacks Active Attacks

1.4

Security Services Authentication Access Control Data Confidentiality Data Integrity Nonrepudiation Availability Service

1.5

Security Mechanisms

1.6

A Model for Network Security

1.7

Recommended Reading and Web Sites

1.8

Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

7

8

CHAPTER 1 / OVERVIEW

The combination of space, time, and strength that must be considered as the basic elements of this theory of defense makes this a fairly complicated matter. Consequently, it is not easy to find a fixed point of departure. —On War, Carl Von Clausewitz

KEY POINTS ◆

◆

◆

◆

The Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) security architecture provides a systematic framework for defining security attacks, mechanisms, and services. Security attacks are classified as either passive attacks, which include unauthorized reading of a message of file and traffic analysis or active attacks, such as modification of messages or files, and denial of service. A security mechanism is any process (or a device incorporating such a process) that is designed to detect, prevent, or recover from a security attack. Examples of mechanisms are encryption algorithms, digital signatures, and authentication protocols. Security services include authentication, access control, data confidentiality, data integrity, nonrepudiation, and availability.

This book focuses on two broad areas: cryptographic algorithms and protocols, which have a broad range of applications; and network and Internet security, which rely heavily on cryptographic techniques. Cryptographic algorithms and protocols can be grouped into four main areas: • Symmetric encryption: Used to conceal the contents of blocks or streams of data of any size, including messages, files, encryption keys, and passwords. • Asymmetric encryption: Used to conceal small blocks of data, such as encryption keys and hash function values, which are used in digital signatures. • Data integrity algorithms: Used to protect blocks of data, such as messages, from alteration. • Authentication protocols: These are schemes based on the use of cryptographic algorithms designed to authenticate the identity of entities. The field of network and Internet security consists of measures to deter, prevent, detect, and correct security violations that involve the transmission of information. That is a broad statement that covers a host of possibilities. To give you a feel for the areas covered in this book, consider the following examples of security violations: 1. User A transmits a file to user B. The file contains sensitive information (e.g., payroll records) that is to be protected from disclosure. User C, who is

1.1 / COMPUTER SECURITY CONCEPTS

9

not authorized to read the file, is able to monitor the transmission and capture a copy of the file during its transmission. 2. A network manager, D, transmits a message to a computer, E, under its management. The message instructs computer E to update an authorization file to include the identities of a number of new users who are to be given access to that computer. User F intercepts the message, alters its contents to add or delete entries, and then forwards the message to computer E, which accepts the message as coming from manager D and updates its authorization file accordingly. 3. Rather than intercept a message, user F constructs its own message with the desired entries and transmits that message to computer E as if it had come from manager D. Computer E accepts the message as coming from manager D and updates its authorization file accordingly. 4. An employee is fired without warning. The personnel manager sends a message to a server system to invalidate the employee’s account. When the invalidation is accomplished, the server is to post a notice to the employee’s file as confirmation of the action. The employee is able to intercept the message and delay it long enough to make a final access to the server to retrieve sensitive information. The message is then forwarded, the action taken, and the confirmation posted. The employee’s action may go unnoticed for some considerable time. 5. A message is sent from a customer to a stockbroker with instructions for various transactions. Subsequently, the investments lose value and the customer denies sending the message. Although this list by no means exhausts the possible types of network security violations, it illustrates the range of concerns of network security.

1.1 COMPUTER SECURITY CONCEPTS A Definition of Computer Security The NIST Computer Security Handbook [NIST95] defines the term computer security as follows:

COMPUTER SECURITY The protection afforded to an automated information system in order to attain the applicable objectives of preserving the integrity, availability, and confidentiality of information system resources (includes hardware, software, firmware, information/ data, and telecommunications).

CHAPTER 1 / OVERVIEW

This definition introduces three key objectives that are at the heart of computer security: • Confidentiality: This term covers two related concepts: Data1 confidentiality: Assures that private or confidential information is not made available or disclosed to unauthorized individuals. Privacy: Assures that individuals control or influence what information related to them may be collected and stored and by whom and to whom that information may be disclosed. • Integrity: This term covers two related concepts: Data integrity: Assures that information and programs are changed only in a specified and authorized manner. System integrity: Assures that a system performs its intended function in an unimpaired manner, free from deliberate or inadvertent unauthorized manipulation of the system. • Availability: Assures that systems work promptly and service is not denied to authorized users.

ity

Data and services

egr

Int

ent

ial ity

These three concepts form what is often referred to as the CIA triad (Figure 1.1). The three concepts embody the fundamental security objectives for both data and for information and computing services. For example, the NIST standard FIPS 199 (Standards for Security Categorization of Federal Information

Co nfi d

10

Availability

Figure 1.1 The Security Requirements Triad

1 RFC 2828 defines information as “facts and ideas, which can be represented (encoded) as various forms of data,” and data as “information in a specific physical representation, usually a sequence of symbols that have meaning; especially a representation of information that can be processed or produced by a computer.” Security literature typically does not make much of a distinction, nor does this book.

1.1 / COMPUTER SECURITY CONCEPTS

11

and Information Systems) lists confidentiality, integrity, and availability as the three security objectives for information and for information systems. FIPS 199 provides a useful characterization of these three objectives in terms of requirements and the definition of a loss of security in each category: • Confidentiality: Preserving authorized restrictions on information access and disclosure, including means for protecting personal privacy and proprietary information. A loss of confidentiality is the unauthorized disclosure of information. • Integrity: Guarding against improper information modification or destruction, including ensuring information nonrepudiation and authenticity. A loss of integrity is the unauthorized modification or destruction of information. • Availability: Ensuring timely and reliable access to and use of information. A loss of availability is the disruption of access to or use of information or an information system. Although the use of the CIA triad to define security objectives is well established, some in the security field feel that additional concepts are needed to present a complete picture. Two of the most commonly mentioned are as follows: • Authenticity: The property of being genuine and being able to be verified and trusted; confidence in the validity of a transmission, a message, or message originator. This means verifying that users are who they say they are and that each input arriving at the system came from a trusted source. • Accountability: The security goal that generates the requirement for actions of an entity to be traced uniquely to that entity. This supports nonrepudiation, deterrence, fault isolation, intrusion detection and prevention, and after-action recovery and legal action. Because truly secure systems are not yet an achievable goal, we must be able to trace a security breach to a responsible party. Systems must keep records of their activities to permit later forensic analysis to trace security breaches or to aid in transaction disputes.

Examples We now provide some examples of applications that illustrate the requirements just enumerated.2 For these examples, we use three levels of impact on organizations or individuals should there be a breach of security (i.e., a loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability). These levels are defined in FIPS PUB 199: • Low: The loss could be expected to have a limited adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. A limited adverse effect means that, for example, the loss of confidentiality, integrity, or availability

2

These examples are taken from a security policy document published by the Information Technology Security and Privacy Office at Purdue University.

12

CHAPTER 1 / OVERVIEW

might (i) cause a degradation in mission capability to an extent and duration that the organization is able to perform its primary functions, but the effectiveness of the functions is noticeably reduced; (ii) result in minor damage to organizational assets; (iii) result in minor financial loss; or (iv) result in minor harm to individuals. • Moderate: The loss could be expected to have a serious adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. A serious adverse effect means that, for example, the loss might (i) cause a significant degradation in mission capability to an extent and duration that the organization is able to perform its primary functions, but the effectiveness of the functions is significantly reduced; (ii) result in significant damage to organizational assets; (iii) result in significant financial loss; or (iv) result in significant harm to individuals that does not involve loss of life or serious, life-threatening injuries. • High: The loss could be expected to have a severe or catastrophic adverse effect on organizational operations, organizational assets, or individuals. A severe or catastrophic adverse effect means that, for example, the loss might (i) cause a severe degradation in or loss of mission capability to an extent and duration that the organization is not able to perform one or more of its primary functions; (ii) result in major damage to organizational assets; (iii) result in major financial loss; or (iv) result in severe or catastrophic harm to individuals involving loss of life or serious, life-threatening injuries. CONFIDENTIALITY Student grade information is an asset whose confidentiality is considered to be highly important by students. In the United States, the release of such information is regulated by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Grade information should only be available to students, their parents, and employees that require the information to do their job. Student enrollment information may have a moderate confidentiality rating. While still covered by FERPA, this information is seen by more people on a daily basis, is less likely to be targeted than grade information, and results in less damage if disclosed. Directory information, such as lists of students or faculty or departmental lists, may be assigned a low confidentiality rating or indeed no rating. This information is typically freely available to the public and published on a school’s Web site. INTEGRITY Several aspects of integrity are illustrated by the example of a hospital patient’s allergy information stored in a database. The doctor should be able to trust that the information is correct and current. Now suppose that an employee (e.g., a nurse) who is authorized to view and update this information deliberately falsifies the data to cause harm to the hospital. The database needs to be restored to a trusted basis quickly, and it should be possible to trace the error back to the person responsible. Patient allergy information is an example of an asset with a high requirement for integrity. Inaccurate information could result in serious harm or death to a patient and expose the hospital to massive liability.

1.1 / COMPUTER SECURITY CONCEPTS

13

An example of an asset that may be assigned a moderate level of integrity requirement is a Web site that offers a forum to registered users to discuss some specific topic. Either a registered user or a hacker could falsify some entries or deface the Web site. If the forum exists only for the enjoyment of the users, brings in little or no advertising revenue, and is not used for something important such as research, then potential damage is not severe. The Web master may experience some data, financial, and time loss. An example of a low integrity requirement is an anonymous online poll. Many Web sites, such as news organizations, offer these polls to their users with very few safeguards. However, the inaccuracy and unscientific nature of such polls is well understood. AVAILABILITY The more critical a component or service, the higher is the level of availability required. Consider a system that provides authentication services for critical systems, applications, and devices. An interruption of service results in the inability for customers to access computing resources and staff to access the resources they need to perform critical tasks. The loss of the service translates into a large financial loss in lost employee productivity and potential customer loss. An example of an asset that would typically be rated as having a moderate availability requirement is a public Web site for a university; the Web site provides information for current and prospective students and donors. Such a site is not a critical component of the university’s information system, but its unavailability will cause some embarrassment. An online telephone directory lookup application would be classified as a low availability requirement. Although the temporary loss of the application may be an annoyance, there are other ways to access the information, such as a hardcopy directory or the operator.

The Challenges of Computer Security Computer and network security is both fascinating and complex. Some of the reasons follow: 1. Security is not as simple as it might first appear to the novice. The requirements seem to be straightforward; indeed, most of the major requirements for security services can be given self-explanatory, one-word labels: confidentiality, authentication, nonrepudiation, or integrity. But the mechanisms used to meet those requirements can be quite complex, and understanding them may involve rather subtle reasoning. 2. In developing a particular security mechanism or algorithm, one must always consider potential attacks on those security features. In many cases, successful attacks are designed by looking at the problem in a completely different way, therefore exploiting an unexpected weakness in the mechanism. 3. Because of point 2, the procedures used to provide particular services are often counterintuitive. Typically, a security mechanism is complex, and it is not obvious from the statement of a particular requirement that such elaborate measures are

14

CHAPTER 1 / OVERVIEW

4.

5.

6.

7. 8. 9. 10.

needed. It is only when the various aspects of the threat are considered that elaborate security mechanisms make sense. Having designed various security mechanisms, it is necessary to decide where to use them. This is true both in terms of physical placement (e.g., at what points in a network are certain security mechanisms needed) and in a logical sense [e.g., at what layer or layers of an architecture such as TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) should mechanisms be placed]. Security mechanisms typically involve more than a particular algorithm or protocol. They also require that participants be in possession of some secret information (e.g., an encryption key), which raises questions about the creation, distribution, and protection of that secret information. There also may be a reliance on communications protocols whose behavior may complicate the task of developing the security mechanism. For example, if the proper functioning of the security mechanism requires setting time limits on the transit time of a message from sender to receiver, then any protocol or network that introduces variable, unpredictable delays may render such time limits meaningless. Computer and network security is essentially a battle of wits between a perpetrator who tries to find holes and the designer or administrator who tries to close them. The great advantage that the attacker has is that he or she need only find a single weakness, while the designer must find and eliminate all weaknesses to achieve perfect security. There is a natural tendency on the part of users and system managers to perceive little benefit from security investment until a security failure occurs. Security requires regular, even constant, monitoring, and this is difficult in today’s short-term, overloaded environment. Security is still too often an afterthought to be incorporated into a system after the design is complete rather than being an integral part of the design process. Many users and even security administrators view strong security as an impediment to efficient and user-friendly operation of an information system or use of information.

The difficulties just enumerated will be encountered in numerous ways as we examine the various security threats and mechanisms throughout this book.

1.2 THE OSI SECURITY ARCHITECTURE To assess effectively the security needs of an organization and to evaluate and choose various security products and policies, the manager responsible for security needs some systematic way of defining the requirements for security and characterizing the approaches to satisfying those requirements. This is difficult enough in a centralized data processing environment; with the use of local and wide area networks, the problems are compounded.

1.3 / SECURITY ATTACKS

15

Table 1.1 Threats and Attacks (RFC 2828) Threat A potential for violation of security, which exists when there is a circumstance, capability, action, or event that could breach security and cause harm. That is, a threat is a possible danger that might exploit a vulnerability. Attack An assault on system security that derives from an intelligent threat; that is, an intelligent act that is a deliberate attempt (especially in the sense of a method or technique) to evade security services and violate the security policy of a system.

ITU-T3 Recommendation X.800, Security Architecture for OSI, defines such a systematic approach.4 The OSI security architecture is useful to managers as a way of organizing the task of providing security. Furthermore, because this architecture was developed as an international standard, computer and communications vendors have developed security features for their products and services that relate to this structured definition of services and mechanisms. For our purposes, the OSI security architecture provides a useful, if abstract, overview of many of the concepts that this book deals with. The OSI security architecture focuses on security attacks, mechanisms, and services. These can be defined briefly as • Security attack: Any action that compromises the security of information owned by an organization. • Security mechanism: A process (or a device incorporating such a process) that is designed to detect, prevent, or recover from a security attack. • Security service: A processing or communication service that enhances the security of the data processing systems and the information transfers of an organization. The services are intended to counter security attacks, and they make use of one or more security mechanisms to provide the service. In the literature, the terms threat and attack are commonly used to mean more or less the same thing. Table 1.1 provides definitions taken from RFC 2828, Internet Security Glossary.

1.3 SECURITY ATTACKS A useful means of classifying security attacks, used both in X.800 and RFC 2828, is in terms of passive attacks and active attacks. A passive attack attempts to learn or make use of information from the system but does not affect system resources. An active attack attempts to alter system resources or affect their operation. 3

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T) is a United Nations-sponsored agency that develops standards, called Recommendations, relating to telecommunications and to open systems interconnection (OSI). 4 The OSI security architecture was developed in the context of the OSI protocol architecture, which is described in Appendix L. However, for our purposes in this chapter, an understanding of the OSI protocol architecture is not required.

16

CHAPTER 1 / OVERVIEW

Passive Attacks Passive attacks are in the nature of eavesdropping on, or monitoring of, transmissions. The goal of the opponent is to obtain information that is being transmitted. Two types of passive attacks are the release of message contents and traffic analysis. The release of message contents is easily understood (Figure 1.2a).A telephone conversation, an electronic mail message, and a transferred file may contain sensitive or confidential information. We would like to prevent an opponent from learning the contents of these transmissions. A second type of passive attack, traffic analysis, is subtler (Figure 1.2b). Suppose that we had a way of masking the contents of messages or other information traffic so that opponents, even if they captured the message, could not extract the information from the message. The common technique for masking contents is encryption. If we had encryption protection in place, an opponent might still be able to observe the pattern of these messages. The opponent could determine the location and identity of communicating hosts and could observe the frequency and length of messages being exchanged. This information might be useful in guessing the nature of the communication that was taking place. Passive attacks are very difficult to detect, because they do not involve any alteration of the data. Typically, the message traffic is sent and received in an apparently normal fashion, and neither the sender nor receiver is aware that a third party has read the messages or observed the traffic pattern. However, it is feasible to prevent the success of these attacks, usually by means of encryption. Thus, the emphasis in dealing with passive attacks is on prevention rather than detection.

Active Attacks Active attacks involve some modification of the data stream or the creation of a false stream and can be subdivided into four categories: masquerade, replay, modification of messages, and denial of service. A masquerade takes place when one entity pretends to be a different entity (Figure 1.3a). A masquerade attack usually includes one of the other forms of active attack. For example, authentication sequences can be captured and replayed after a valid authentication sequence has taken place, thus enabling an authorized entity with few privileges to obtain extra privileges by impersonating an entity that has those privileges. Replay involves the passive capture of a data unit and its subsequent retransmission to produce an unauthorized effect (Figure 1.3b). Modification of messages simply means that some portion of a legitimate message is altered, or that messages are delayed or reordered, to produce an unauthorized effect (Figure 1.3c). For example, a message meaning “Allow John Smith to read confidential file accounts” is modified to mean “Allow Fred Brown to read confidential file accounts.” The denial of service prevents or inhibits the normal use or management of communications facilities (Figure 1.3d). This attack may have a specific target; for example, an entity may suppress all messages directed to a particular destination

1.3 / SECURITY ATTACKS

Darth

17

Read contents of message from Bob to Alice

Internet or other comms facility Bob

Alice (a) Release of message contents

Darth

Observe pattern of messages from Bob to Alice

Internet or other comms facility Bob

Alice (b) Traffic analysis

Figure 1.2

Passive Attacks

(e.g., the security audit service).Another form of service denial is the disruption of an entire network, either by disabling the network or by overloading it with messages so as to degrade performance. Active attacks present the opposite characteristics of passive attacks. Whereas passive attacks are difficult to detect, measures are available to prevent their success.

18

CHAPTER 1 / OVERVIEW

Darth

Message from Darth that appears to be from Bob

Internet or other comms facility Bob

Alice (a) Masquerade

Darth

Capture message from Bob to Alice; later replay message to Alice

Internet or other comms facility Alice

Bob (b) Replay Figure 1.3

Active attacks (Continued)

On the other hand, it is quite difficult to prevent active attacks absolutely because of the wide variety of potential physical, software, and network vulnerabilities. Instead, the goal is to detect active attacks and to recover from any disruption or delays caused by them. If the detection has a deterrent effect, it may also contribute to prevention.

1.4 / SECURITY SERVICES

Darth

19

Darth modifies message from Bob to Alice

Internet or other comms facility Bob

Alice (c) Modification of messages

Darth

Darth disrupts service provided by server

Internet or other comms facility Bob

Server (d) Denial of service

Figure 1.3

Active attacks

1.4 SECURITY SERVICES X.800 defines a security service as a service that is provided by a protocol layer of communicating open systems and that ensures adequate security of the systems or of data transfers. Perhaps a clearer definition is found in RFC 2828, which provides the following definition: a processing or communication service that is provided by

20

CHAPTER 1 / OVERVIEW

a system to give a specific kind of protection to system resources; security services implement security policies and are implemented by security mechanisms. X.800 divides these services into five categories and fourteen specific services (Table 1.2). We look at each category in turn.5 Table 1.2 Security Services (X.800) AUTHENTICATION The assurance that the communicating entity is the one that it claims to be. Peer Entity Authentication Used in association with a logical connection to provide confidence in the identity of the entities connected. Data-Origin Authentication In a connectionless transfer, provides assurance that the source of received data is as claimed.

DATA INTEGRITY The assurance that data received are exactly as sent by an authorized entity (i.e., contain no modification, insertion, deletion, or replay). Connection Integrity with Recovery Provides for the integrity of all user data on a connection and detects any modification, insertion, deletion, or replay of any data within an entire data sequence, with recovery attempted. Connection Integrity without Recovery As above, but provides only detection without recovery.

ACCESS CONTROL The prevention of unauthorized use of a resource (i.e., this service controls who can have access to a resource, under what conditions access can occur, and what those accessing the resource are allowed to do). DATA CONFIDENTIALITY The protection of data from unauthorized disclosure. Connection Confidentiality The protection of all user data on a connection. Connectionless Confidentiality The protection of all user data in a single data block Selective-Field Confidentiality The confidentiality of selected fields within the user data on a connection or in a single data block. Traffic-Flow Confidentiality The protection of the information that might be derived from observation of traffic flows.

Selective-Field Connection Integrity Provides for the integrity of selected fields within the user data of a data block transferred over a connection and takes the form of determination of whether the selected fields have been modified, inserted, deleted, or replayed. Connectionless Integrity Provides for the integrity of a single connectionless data block and may take the form of detection of data modification. Additionally, a limited form of replay detection may be provided. Selective-Field Connectionless Integrity Provides for the integrity of selected fields within a single connectionless data block; takes the form of determination of whether the selected fields have been modified. NONREPUDIATION Provides protection against denial by one of the entities involved in a communication of having participated in all or part of the communication. Nonrepudiation, Origin Proof that the message was sent by the specified party. Nonrepudiation, Destination Proof that the message was received by the specified party.

5

There is no universal agreement about many of the terms used in the security literature. For example, the term integrity is sometimes used to refer to all aspects of information security. The term authentication is sometimes used to refer both to verification of identity and to the various functions listed under integrity in this chapter. Our usage here agrees with both X.800 and RFC 2828.

1.4 / SECURITY SERVICES

21

Authentication The authentication service is concerned with assuring that a communication is authentic. In the case of a single message, such as a warning or alarm signal, the function of the authentication service is to assure the recipient that the message is from the source that it claims to be from. In the case of an ongoing interaction, such as the connection of a terminal to a host, two aspects are involved. First, at the time of connection initiation, the service assures that the two entities are authentic, that is, that each is the entity that it claims to be. Second, the service must assure that the connection is not interfered with in such a way that a third party can masquerade as one of the two legitimate parties for the purposes of unauthorized transmission or reception. Two specific authentication services are defined in X.800: • Peer entity authentication: Provides for the corroboration of the identity of a peer entity in an association. Two entities are considered peers if they implement to same protocol in different systems; e.g., two TCP modules in two communicating systems. Peer entity authentication is provided for use at the establishment of, or at times during the data transfer phase of, a connection. It attempts to provide confidence that an entity is not performing either a masquerade or an unauthorized replay of a previous connection. • Data origin authentication: Provides for the corroboration of the source of a data unit. It does not provide protection against the duplication or modification of data units. This type of service supports applications like electronic mail, where there are no prior interactions between the communicating entities.

Access Control In the context of network security, access control is the ability to limit and control the access to host systems and applications via communications links. To achieve this, each entity trying to gain access must first be identified, or authenticated, so that access rights can be tailored to the individual.

Data Confidentiality Confidentiality is the protection of transmitted data from passive attacks. With respect to the content of a data transmission, several levels of protection can be identified. The broadest service protects all user data transmitted between two users over a period of time. For example, when a TCP connection is set up between two systems, this broad protection prevents the release of any user data transmitted over the TCP connection. Narrower forms of this service can also be defined, including the protection of a single message or even specific fields within a message. These refinements are less useful than the broad approach and may even be more complex and expensive to implement. The other aspect of confidentiality is the protection of traffic flow from analysis. This requires that an attacker not be able to observe the source and destination, frequency, length, or other characteristics of the traffic on a communications facility.

22

CHAPTER 1 / OVERVIEW

Data Integrity As with confidentiality, integrity can apply to a stream of messages, a single message, or selected fields within a message. Again, the most useful and straightforward approach is total stream protection. A connection-oriented integrity service, one that deals with a stream of messages, assures that messages are received as sent with no duplication, insertion, modification, reordering, or replays. The destruction of data is also covered under this service. Thus, the connection-oriented integrity service addresses both message stream modification and denial of service. On the other hand, a connectionless integrity service, one that deals with individual messages without regard to any larger context, generally provides protection against message modification only. We can make a distinction between service with and without recovery. Because the integrity service relates to active attacks, we are concerned with detection rather than prevention. If a violation of integrity is detected, then the service may simply report this violation, and some other portion of software or human intervention is required to recover from the violation. Alternatively, there are mechanisms available to recover from the loss of integrity of data, as we will review subsequently. The incorporation of automated recovery mechanisms is, in general, the more attractive alternative.

Nonrepudiation Nonrepudiation prevents either sender or receiver from denying a transmitted message. Thus, when a message is sent, the receiver can prove that the alleged sender in fact sent the message. Similarly, when a message is received, the sender can prove that the alleged receiver in fact received the message.

Availability Service Both X.800 and RFC 2828 define availability to be the property of a system or a system resource being accessible and usable upon demand by an authorized system entity, according to performance specifications for the system (i.e., a system is available if it provides services according to the system design whenever users request them). A variety of attacks can result in the loss of or reduction in availability. Some of these attacks are amenable to automated countermeasures, such as authentication and encryption, whereas others require some sort of physical action to prevent or recover from loss of availability of elements of a distributed system. X.800 treats availability as a property to be associated with various security services. However, it makes sense to call out specifically an availability service. An availability service is one that protects a system to ensure its availability. This service addresses the security concerns raised by denial-of-service attacks. It depends on proper management and control of system resources and thus depends on access control service and other security services.

1.5 / SECURITY MECHANISMS

23

1.5 SECURITY MECHANISMS Table 1.3 lists the security mechanisms defined in X.800. The mechanisms are divided into those that are implemented in a specific protocol layer, such as TCP or an application-layer protocol, and those that are not specific to any particular protocol layer or security service. These mechanisms will be covered in the appropriate places in the book. So we do not elaborate now, except to comment on the Table 1.3 Security Mechanisms (X.800) SPECIFIC SECURITY MECHANISMS May be incorporated into the appropriate protocol layer in order to provide some of the OSI security services. Encipherment The use of mathematical algorithms to transform data into a form that is not readily intelligible. The transformation and subsequent recovery of the data depend on an algorithm and zero or more encryption keys. Digital Signature Data appended to, or a cryptographic transformation of, a data unit that allows a recipient of the data unit to prove the source and integrity of the data unit and protect against forgery (e.g., by the recipient). Access Control A variety of mechanisms that enforce access rights to resources. Data Integrity A variety of mechanisms used to assure the integrity of a data unit or stream of data units. Authentication Exchange A mechanism intended to ensure the identity of an entity by means of information exchange. Traffic Padding The insertion of bits into gaps in a data stream to frustrate traffic analysis attempts. Routing Control Enables selection of particular physically secure routes for certain data and allows routing changes, especially when a breach of security is suspected. Notarization The use of a trusted third party to assure certain properties of a data exchange.

PERVASIVE SECURITY MECHANISMS Mechanisms that are not specific to any particular OSI security service or protocol layer. Trusted Functionality That which is perceived to be correct with respect to some criteria (e.g., as established by a security policy). Security Label The marking bound to a resource (which may be a data unit) that names or designates the security attributes of that resource. Event Detection Detection of security-relevant events. Security Audit Trail Data collected and potentially used to facilitate a security audit, which is an independent review and examination of system records and activities. Security Recovery Deals with requests from mechanisms, such as event handling and management functions, and takes recovery actions.

24 Table 1.4 Relationship Between Security Services and Mechanisms Mechanism Encipherment

Digital Signature

Peer Entity Authentication

Y

Y

Data Origin Authentication

Y

Y

Service

Access Control Y

Traffic Flow Confidentiality

Y

Data Integrity

Y

Availability

Data Integrity

Authentication Exchange

Traffic Padding

Routing Control

Notarization

Y Y

Confidentiality

Nonrepudiation

Access Control

Y Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y

1.6 / A MODEL FOR NETWORK SECURITY

25

definition of encipherment. X.800 distinguishes between reversible encipherment mechanisms and irreversible encipherment mechanisms. A reversible encipherment mechanism is simply an encryption algorithm that allows data to be encrypted and subsequently decrypted. Irreversible encipherment mechanisms include hash algorithms and message authentication codes, which are used in digital signature and message authentication applications. Table 1.4, based on one in X.800, indicates the relationship between security services and security mechanisms.

1.6 A MODEL FOR NETWORK SECURITY A model for much of what we will be discussing is captured, in very general terms, in Figure 1.4. A message is to be transferred from one party to another across some sort of Internet service. The two parties, who are the principals in this transaction, must cooperate for the exchange to take place. A logical information channel is established by defining a route through the Internet from source to destination and by the cooperative use of communication protocols (e.g., TCP/IP) by the two principals. Security aspects come into play when it is necessary or desirable to protect the information transmission from an opponent who may present a threat to confidentiality, authenticity, and so on. All the techniques for providing security have two components: • A security-related transformation on the information to be sent. Examples include the encryption of the message, which scrambles the message so that it is unreadable by the opponent, and the addition of a code based on the contents of the message, which can be used to verify the identity of the sender. Trusted third party (e.g., arbiter, distributer of secret information)

Secret information

Secret information

Opponent Figure 1.4

Model for Network Security

Security-related transformation

Message

Secure message

Security-related transformation

Recipient

Information channel Secure message

Message

Sender

26

CHAPTER 1 / OVERVIEW

• Some secret information shared by the two principals and, it is hoped, unknown to the opponent. An example is an encryption key used in conjunction with the transformation to scramble the message before transmission and unscramble it on reception.6 A trusted third party may be needed to achieve secure transmission. For example, a third party may be responsible for distributing the secret information to the two principals while keeping it from any opponent. Or a third party may be needed to arbitrate disputes between the two principals concerning the authenticity of a message transmission. This general model shows that there are four basic tasks in designing a particular security service: 1. Design an algorithm for performing the security-related transformation. The algorithm should be such that an opponent cannot defeat its purpose. 2. Generate the secret information to be used with the algorithm. 3. Develop methods for the distribution and sharing of the secret information. 4. Specify a protocol to be used by the two principals that makes use of the security algorithm and the secret information to achieve a particular security service. Parts One through Five of this book concentrate on the types of security mechanisms and services that fit into the model shown in Figure 1.4. However, there are other security-related situations of interest that do not neatly fit this model but are considered in this book. A general model of these other situations is illustrated by Figure 1.5, which reflects a concern for protecting an information system from unwanted access. Most readers are familiar with the concerns caused by the existence of hackers, who attempt to penetrate systems that can be accessed over a network. The hacker can be someone who, with no malign intent, simply gets satisfaction from breaking and entering a computer system. The intruder can be a disgruntled employee who wishes to do damage or a criminal who seeks to exploit computer assets for financial gain (e.g., obtaining credit card numbers or performing illegal money transfers).

Information system Computing resources (processor, memory, I/O)

Opponent —human (e.g., hacker)

Data

—software (e.g., virus, worm) Processes

Access channel

Figure 1.5

6

Gatekeeper function

Software Internal security controls

Network Access Security Model

Part Two discusses a form of encryption, known as a symmetric encryption, in which only one of the two principals needs to have the secret information.

1.7 / RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITES

27

Another type of unwanted access is the placement in a computer system of logic that exploits vulnerabilities in the system and that can affect application programs as well as utility programs, such as editors and compilers. Programs can present two kinds of threats: • Information access threats: Intercept or modify data on behalf of users who should not have access to that data. • Service threats: Exploit service flaws in computers to inhibit use by legitimate users. Viruses and worms are two examples of software attacks. Such attacks can be introduced into a system by means of a disk that contains the unwanted logic concealed in otherwise useful software. They can also be inserted into a system across a network; this latter mechanism is of more concern in network security. The security mechanisms needed to cope with unwanted access fall into two broad categories (see Figure 1.5). The first category might be termed a gatekeeper function. It includes password-based login procedures that are designed to deny access to all but authorized users and screening logic that is designed to detect and reject worms, viruses, and other similar attacks. Once either an unwanted user or unwanted software gains access, the second line of defense consists of a variety of internal controls that monitor activity and analyze stored information in an attempt to detect the presence of unwanted intruders. These issues are explored in Part Six.

1.7 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITES [STAL02] provides a broad introduction to both computer and network security. [SCHN00] is valuable reading for any practitioner in the field of computer or network security: It discusses the limitations of technology, and cryptography in particular, in providing security and the need to consider the hardware, the software implementation, the networks, and the people involved in providing and attacking security. It is useful to read some of the classic tutorial papers on computer security; these provide a historical perspective from which to appreciate current work and thinking. The papers to read are [WARE79], [BROW72], [SALT75], [SHAN77], and [SUMM84]. Two more recent, short treatments of computer security are [ANDR04] and [LAMP04]. [NIST95] is an exhaustive (290 pages) treatment of the subject. Another good treatment is [NRC91]. Also useful is [FRAS97]. ANDR04 Andrews, M., and Whittaker, J. “Computer Security.” IEEE Security and Privacy, September/October 2004. BROW72 Browne, P. “Computer Security—A Survey.” ACM SIGMIS Database, Fall 1972. FRAS97 Fraser, B. Site Security Handbook. RFC 2196, September 1997. LAMP04 Lampson, B. “Computer Security in the Real World,” Computer, June 2004. NIST95 National Institute of Standards and Technology. An Introduction to Computer Security: The NIST Handbook. Special Publication 800–12, October 1995.

28

CHAPTER 1 / OVERVIEW NRC91 National Research Council. Computers at Risk: Safe Computing in the Information Age. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991. SALT75 Saltzer, J., and Schroeder, M. “The Protection of Information in Computer Systems.” Proceedings of the IEEE, September 1975. SCHN00 Schneier, B. Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World. New York: Wiley, 2000. SHAN77 Shanker, K. “The Total Computer Security Problem: An Overview.” Computer, June 1977. STAL08 Stallings, W., and Brown, L. Computer Security. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008. SUMM84 Summers, R. “An Overview of Computer Security.” IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1984. WARE79 Ware, W., ed. Security Controls for Computer Systems. RAND Report 609–1. October 1979. http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R609-1/R609.1.html

Recommended Web Sites: The following Web sites7 are of general interest related to cryptography and network security: • IETF Security Area: Material related to Internet security standardization efforts. • The Cryptography FAQ: Lengthy and worthwhile FAQ covering all aspects of cryptography. • Tom Dunigan’s Security page: An excellent list of pointers to cryptography and network security Web sites. • Peter Gutmann’s home page: Good collection of cryptography material. • Helgar Lipma’s Cryptology Pointers: Another excellent list of pointers to cryptography and network security Web sites. • Cryptology ePrint archive: Provides rapid access to recent research in cryptology; consists of a collection of unrefereed papers. • IEEE Technical Committee on Security and Privacy: Copies of their newsletter and information on IEEE-related activities. • Computer Security Resource Center: Maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); contains a broad range of information on security threats, technology, and standards. • Computer and Network Security Reference Index: A good index to vendor and commercial products, FAQs, newsgroup archives, papers, and other Web sites. • Security Focus: A wide variety of security information, with an emphasis on vendor products and end-user concerns. • SANS Institute: Similar to Security Focus. Extensive collection of white papers. 7

Because URLs sometimes change, they are not included. For all of the Web sites listed in this and subsequent chapters, the appropriate link is at this book’s Web site at williamstallings.com/Crypto/ Crypto5e.html.

1.8 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

29

• Risks Digest: Forum on risks to the public in computers and related systems. • Institute for Security and Open Methodologies: An open, collaborative security research community. Lots of interesting information.

• Center for Internet Security: Provides freeware benchmark and scoring tools for evaluating security of operating systems, network devices, and applications. Includes case studies and technical papers.

1.8 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms access control active threat authentication authenticity availability data confidentiality data integrity

denial of service encryption integrity intruder masquerade nonrepudiation OSI security architecture

passive threat replay security attacks security mechanisms security services traffic analysis

Review Questions 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

What is the OSI security architecture? What is the difference between passive and active security threats? List and briefly define categories of passive and active security attacks. List and briefly define categories of security services. List and briefly define categories of security mechanisms.

Problems 1.1

1.2 1.3

1.4

Consider an automated teller machine (ATM) in which users provide a personal identification number (PIN) and a card for account access. Give examples of confidentiality, integrity, and availability requirements associated with the system and, in each case, indicate the degree of importance of the requirement. Repeat Problem 1.1 for a telephone switching system that routes calls through a switching network based on the telephone number requested by the caller. Consider a desktop publishing system used to produce documents for various organizations. a. Give an example of a type of publication for which confidentiality of the stored data is the most important requirement. b. Give an example of a type of publication in which data integrity is the most important requirement. c. Give an example in which system availability is the most important requirement. For each of the following assets, assign a low, moderate, or high impact level for the loss of confidentiality, availability, and integrity, respectively. Justify your answers. a. An organization managing public information on its Web server. b. A law enforcement organization managing extremely sensitive investigative information.

30

CHAPTER 1 / OVERVIEW

1.5 1.6

c. A financial organization managing routine administrative information (not privacyrelated information). d. An information system used for large acquisitions in a contracting organization contains both sensitive, pre-solicitation phase contract information and routine administrative information. Assess the impact for the two data sets separately and the information system as a whole. e. A power plant contains a SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) system controlling the distribution of electric power for a large military installation. The SCADA system contains both real-time sensor data and routine administrative information. Assess the impact for the two data sets separately and the information system as a whole. Draw a matrix similar to Table 1.4 that shows the relationship between security services and attacks. Draw a matrix similar to Table 1.4 that shows the relationship between security mechanisms and attacks.

PART 1: SYMMETRIC CIPHERS

CHAPTER

CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES 2.1

Symmetric Cipher Model Cryptography Cryptanalysis and Brute-Force Attack

2.2

Substitution Techniques Caesar Cipher Monoalphabetic Ciphers Playfair Cipher Hill Cipher Polyalphabetic Ciphers One-Time Pad

2.3

Transposition Techniques

2.4

Rotor Machines

2.5

Steganography

2.6

Recommended Reading and Web Sites

2.7

Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

31

32

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

“I am fairly familiar with all the forms of secret writings, and am myself the author of a trifling monograph upon the subject, in which I analyze one hundred and sixty separate ciphers,” said Holmes. —The Adventure of the Dancing Men, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

KEY POINTS ◆

◆

◆

◆

◆ ◆

Symmetric encryption is a form of cryptosystem in which encryption and decryption are performed using the same key. It is also known as conventional encryption. Symmetric encryption transforms plaintext into ciphertext using a secret key and an encryption algorithm. Using the same key and a decryption algorithm, the plaintext is recovered from the ciphertext. The two types of attack on an encryption algorithm are cryptanalysis, based on properties of the encryption algorithm, and brute-force, which involves trying all possible keys. Traditional (precomputer) symmetric ciphers use substitution and/or transposition techniques. Substitution techniques map plaintext elements (characters, bits) into ciphertext elements. Transposition techniques systematically transpose the positions of plaintext elements. Rotor machines are sophisticated precomputer hardware devices that use substitution techniques. Steganography is a technique for hiding a secret message within a larger one in such a way that others cannot discern the presence or contents of the hidden message.

Symmetric encryption, also referred to as conventional encryption or single-key encryption, was the only type of encryption in use prior to the development of publickey encryption in the 1970s. It remains by far the most widely used of the two types of encryption. Part One examines a number of symmetric ciphers. In this chapter, we begin with a look at a general model for the symmetric encryption process; this will enable us to understand the context within which the algorithms are used. Next, we examine a variety of algorithms in use before the computer era. Finally, we look briefly at a different approach known as steganography. Chapters 3 and 5 examine the two most widely used symmetric cipher: DES and AES. Before beginning, we define some terms. An original message is known as the plaintext, while the coded message is called the ciphertext. The process of converting from plaintext to ciphertext is known as enciphering or encryption; restoring the plaintext from the ciphertext is deciphering or decryption. The many schemes used for encryption constitute the area of study known as cryptography. Such a scheme is known as a cryptographic system or a cipher. Techniques used for deciphering a

2.1 / SYMMETRIC CIPHER MODEL

33

message without any knowledge of the enciphering details fall into the area of cryptanalysis. Cryptanalysis is what the layperson calls “breaking the code.” The areas of cryptography and cryptanalysis together are called cryptology.

2.1 SYMMETRIC CIPHER MODEL A symmetric encryption scheme has five ingredients (Figure 2.1): • Plaintext: This is the original intelligible message or data that is fed into the algorithm as input. • Encryption algorithm: The encryption algorithm performs various substitutions and transformations on the plaintext. • Secret key: The secret key is also input to the encryption algorithm. The key is a value independent of the plaintext and of the algorithm. The algorithm will produce a different output depending on the specific key being used at the time. The exact substitutions and transformations performed by the algorithm depend on the key. • Ciphertext: This is the scrambled message produced as output. It depends on the plaintext and the secret key. For a given message, two different keys will produce two different ciphertexts. The ciphertext is an apparently random stream of data and, as it stands, is unintelligible. • Decryption algorithm: This is essentially the encryption algorithm run in reverse. It takes the ciphertext and the secret key and produces the original plaintext. There are two requirements for secure use of conventional encryption: 1. We need a strong encryption algorithm. At a minimum, we would like the algorithm to be such that an opponent who knows the algorithm and has access to one or more ciphertexts would be unable to decipher the ciphertext or figure out the key. This requirement is usually stated in a stronger form: The

Secret key shared by sender and recipient

Secret key shared by sender and recipient

K

K Transmitted ciphertext

X

Y = E(K, X) Plaintext input

Figure 2.1

Encryption algorithm (e.g., AES)

Simplified Model of Symmetric Encryption

X = D[K, Y] Decryption algorithm (reverse of encryption algorithm)

Plaintext output

34

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

opponent should be unable to decrypt ciphertext or discover the key even if he or she is in possession of a number of ciphertexts together with the plaintext that produced each ciphertext. 2. Sender and receiver must have obtained copies of the secret key in a secure fashion and must keep the key secure. If someone can discover the key and knows the algorithm, all communication using this key is readable. We assume that it is impractical to decrypt a message on the basis of the ciphertext plus knowledge of the encryption/decryption algorithm. In other words, we do not need to keep the algorithm secret; we need to keep only the key secret. This feature of symmetric encryption is what makes it feasible for widespread use. The fact that the algorithm need not be kept secret means that manufacturers can and have developed low-cost chip implementations of data encryption algorithms. These chips are widely available and incorporated into a number of products. With the use of symmetric encryption, the principal security problem is maintaining the secrecy of the key. Let us take a closer look at the essential elements of a symmetric encryption scheme, using Figure 2.2. A source produces a message in plaintext, X = [X1, X2, Á , XM]. The M elements of X are letters in some finite alphabet. Traditionally, the alphabet usually consisted of the 26 capital letters. Nowadays, the binary alphabet {0, 1} is typically used. For encryption, a key of the form K = [K1, K2, Á , KJ] is generated. If the key is generated at the message source, then it must also be provided to the destination by means of some secure channel. Alternatively, a third party could generate the key and securely deliver it to both source and destination.

^ X Cryptanalyst

Message source

X

Encryption algorithm

Y = E(K, X)

K

Secure channel Key source

Figure 2.2

Model of Symmetric Cryptosystem

^ K

Decryption algorithm

X Destination

2.1 / SYMMETRIC CIPHER MODEL

35

With the message X and the encryption key K as input, the encryption algorithm forms the ciphertext Y = [Y1, Y2, Á , YN]. We can write this as Y = E(K, X) This notation indicates that Y is produced by using encryption algorithm E as a function of the plaintext X , with the specific function determined by the value of the key K . The intended receiver, in possession of the key, is able to invert the transformation: X = D(K, Y) An opponent, observing Y but not having access to K or X , may attempt to recover X or K or both X and K . It is assumed that the opponent knows the encryption (E) and decryption (D) algorithms. If the opponent is interested in only this particular message, then the focus of the effort is to recover X by generating a plaintext estimate XN . Often, however, the opponent is interested in being able to read future messages as N. well, in which case an attempt is made to recover K by generating an estimate K

Cryptography Cryptographic systems are characterized along three independent dimensions: 1. The type of operations used for transforming plaintext to ciphertext. All encryption algorithms are based on two general principles: substitution, in which each element in the plaintext (bit, letter, group of bits or letters) is mapped into another element, and transposition, in which elements in the plaintext are rearranged. The fundamental requirement is that no information be lost (that is, that all operations are reversible). Most systems, referred to as product systems, involve multiple stages of substitutions and transpositions. 2. The number of keys used. If both sender and receiver use the same key, the system is referred to as symmetric, single-key, secret-key, or conventional encryption. If the sender and receiver use different keys, the system is referred to as asymmetric, two-key, or public-key encryption. 3. The way in which the plaintext is processed. A block cipher processes the input one block of elements at a time, producing an output block for each input block. A stream cipher processes the input elements continuously, producing output one element at a time, as it goes along.

Cryptanalysis and Brute-Force Attack Typically, the objective of attacking an encryption system is to recover the key in use rather than simply to recover the plaintext of a single ciphertext. There are two general approaches to attacking a conventional encryption scheme: • Cryptanalysis: Cryptanalytic attacks rely on the nature of the algorithm plus perhaps some knowledge of the general characteristics of the plaintext or

36

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

even some sample plaintext–ciphertext pairs. This type of attack exploits the characteristics of the algorithm to attempt to deduce a specific plaintext or to deduce the key being used. • Brute-force attack: The attacker tries every possible key on a piece of ciphertext until an intelligible translation into plaintext is obtained. On average, half of all possible keys must be tried to achieve success. If either type of attack succeeds in deducing the key, the effect is catastrophic: All future and past messages encrypted with that key are compromised. We first consider cryptanalysis and then discuss brute-force attacks. Table 2.1 summarizes the various types of cryptanalytic attacks based on the amount of information known to the cryptanalyst. The most difficult problem is presented when all that is available is the ciphertext only. In some cases, not even the encryption algorithm is known, but in general, we can assume that the opponent does know the algorithm used for encryption. One possible attack under these circumstances is the brute-force approach of trying all possible keys. If the key space is very large, this becomes impractical. Thus, the opponent must rely on an analysis of the ciphertext itself, generally applying various statistical tests to it. To use this approach, the opponent must have some general idea of the type of plaintext that is concealed, such as English or French text, an EXE file, a Java source listing, an accounting file, and so on. Table 2.1 Types of Attacks on Encrypted Messages Type of Attack Ciphertext Only

Known to Cryptanalyst • Encryption algorithm • Ciphertext

Known Plaintext

• Encryption algorithm • Ciphertext • One or more plaintext–ciphertext pairs formed with the secret key

Chosen Plaintext

• Encryption algorithm • Ciphertext • Plaintext message chosen by cryptanalyst, together with its corresponding ciphertext generated with the secret key

Chosen Ciphertext

• Encryption algorithm • Ciphertext • Ciphertext chosen by cryptanalyst, together with its corresponding decrypted plaintext generated with the secret key

Chosen Text

• Encryption algorithm • Ciphertext • Plaintext message chosen by cryptanalyst, together with its corresponding ciphertext generated with the secret key • Ciphertext chosen by cryptanalyst, together with its corresponding decrypted plaintext generated with the secret key

2.1 / SYMMETRIC CIPHER MODEL

37

The ciphertext-only attack is the easiest to defend against because the opponent has the least amount of information to work with. In many cases, however, the analyst has more information. The analyst may be able to capture one or more plaintext messages as well as their encryptions. Or the analyst may know that certain plaintext patterns will appear in a message. For example, a file that is encoded in the Postscript format always begins with the same pattern, or there may be a standardized header or banner to an electronic funds transfer message, and so on. All these are examples of known plaintext. With this knowledge, the analyst may be able to deduce the key on the basis of the way in which the known plaintext is transformed. Closely related to the known-plaintext attack is what might be referred to as a probable-word attack. If the opponent is working with the encryption of some general prose message, he or she may have little knowledge of what is in the message. However, if the opponent is after some very specific information, then parts of the message may be known. For example, if an entire accounting file is being transmitted, the opponent may know the placement of certain key words in the header of the file. As another example, the source code for a program developed by Corporation X might include a copyright statement in some standardized position. If the analyst is able somehow to get the source system to insert into the system a message chosen by the analyst, then a chosen-plaintext attack is possible. An example of this strategy is differential cryptanalysis, explored in Chapter 3. In general, if the analyst is able to choose the messages to encrypt, the analyst may deliberately pick patterns that can be expected to reveal the structure of the key. Table 2.1 lists two other types of attack: chosen ciphertext and chosen text. These are less commonly employed as cryptanalytic techniques but are nevertheless possible avenues of attack. Only relatively weak algorithms fail to withstand a ciphertext-only attack. Generally, an encryption algorithm is designed to withstand a known-plaintext attack. Two more definitions are worthy of note. An encryption scheme is unconditionally secure if the ciphertext generated by the scheme does not contain enough information to determine uniquely the corresponding plaintext, no matter how much ciphertext is available. That is, no matter how much time an opponent has, it is impossible for him or her to decrypt the ciphertext simply because the required information is not there. With the exception of a scheme known as the one-time pad (described later in this chapter), there is no encryption algorithm that is unconditionally secure. Therefore, all that the users of an encryption algorithm can strive for is an algorithm that meets one or both of the following criteria: • The cost of breaking the cipher exceeds the value of the encrypted information. • The time required to break the cipher exceeds the useful lifetime of the information. An encryption scheme is said to be computationally secure if either of the foregoing two criteria are met. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to estimate the amount of effort required to cryptanalyze ciphertext successfully.

38

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

Table 2.2 Average Time Required for Exhaustive Key Search Key Size (bits)

Number of Alternative Keys

Time Required at 1 Decryption/μs

Time Required at 106 Decryptions/μs

32

232 = 4.3 * 109

231ms = 35.8 minutes

2.15 milliseconds

56

256 = 7.2 * 1016

255ms = 1142 years

10.01 hours

128

2128 = 3.4 * 1038

2127ms = 5.4 * 1024 years

5.4 * 1018 years

168

2168 = 3.7 * 1050

2167ms = 5.9 * 1036 years

5.9 * 1030 years

26 characters (permutation)

26! = 4 * 1026

2 * 1026ms = 6.4 * 1012 years

6.4 * 106 years

All forms of cryptanalysis for symmetric encryption schemes are designed to exploit the fact that traces of structure or pattern in the plaintext may survive encryption and be discernible in the ciphertext. This will become clear as we examine various symmetric encryption schemes in this chapter. We will see in Part Two that cryptanalysis for public-key schemes proceeds from a fundamentally different premise, namely, that the mathematical properties of the pair of keys may make it possible for one of the two keys to be deduced from the other. A brute-force attack involves trying every possible key until an intelligible translation of the ciphertext into plaintext is obtained. On average, half of all possible keys must be tried to achieve success. Table 2.2 shows how much time is involved for various key spaces. Results are shown for four binary key sizes. The 56-bit key size is used with the Data Encryption Standard (DES) algorithm, and the 168-bit key size is used for triple DES. The minimum key size specified for Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) is 128 bits. Results are also shown for what are called substitution codes that use a 26-character key (discussed later), in which all possible permutations of the 26 characters serve as keys. For each key size, the results are shown assuming that it takes 1 μs to perform a single decryption, which is a reasonable order of magnitude for today’s machines. With the use of massively parallel organizations of microprocessors, it may be possible to achieve processing rates many orders of magnitude greater. The final column of Table 2.2 considers the results for a system that can process 1 million keys per microsecond. As you can see, at this performance level, DES can no longer be considered computationally secure.

2.2 SUBSTITUTION TECHNIQUES In this section and the next, we examine a sampling of what might be called classical encryption techniques. A study of these techniques enables us to illustrate the basic approaches to symmetric encryption used today and the types of cryptanalytic attacks that must be anticipated. The two basic building blocks of all encryption techniques are substitution and transposition. We examine these in the next two sections. Finally, we discuss a system that combines both substitution and transposition.

39

2.2 / SUBSTITUTION TECHNIQUES

A substitution technique is one in which the letters of plaintext are replaced by other letters or by numbers or symbols.1 If the plaintext is viewed as a sequence of bits, then substitution involves replacing plaintext bit patterns with ciphertext bit patterns.

Caesar Cipher The earliest known, and the simplest, use of a substitution cipher was by Julius Caesar. The Caesar cipher involves replacing each letter of the alphabet with the letter standing three places further down the alphabet. For example, plain: meet me after the toga party cipher: PHHW PH DIWHU WKH WRJD SDUWB Note that the alphabet is wrapped around, so that the letter following Z is A. We can define the transformation by listing all possibilities, as follows: plain: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z cipher: D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A B C Let us assign a numerical equivalent to each letter: a 0

b 1

c 2

d 3

e 4

f 5

g 6

h 7

i 8

j 9

k 10

l 11

m 12

n 13

o 14

p 15

q 16

r 17

s 18

t 19

u 20

v 21

w 22

x 23

y 24

z 25

Then the algorithm can be expressed as follows. For each plaintext letter p , substitute the ciphertext letter C:2 C = E(3, p) = (p + 3) mod 26 A shift may be of any amount, so that the general Caesar algorithm is C = E(k, p) = (p + k) mod 26

(2.1)

where k takes on a value in the range 1 to 25. The decryption algorithm is simply p = D(k, C) = (C - k) mod 26

1

(2.2)

When letters are involved, the following conventions are used in this book. Plaintext is always in lowercase; ciphertext is in uppercase; key values are in italicized lowercase. 2 We define a mod n to be the remainder when a is divided by n. For example, 11 mod 7 = 4. See Chapter 4 for a further discussion of modular arithmetic.

40

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

If it is known that a given ciphertext is a Caesar cipher, then a brute-force cryptanalysis is easily performed: simply try all the 25 possible keys. Figure 2.3 shows the results of applying this strategy to the example ciphertext. In this case, the plaintext leaps out as occupying the third line. Three important characteristics of this problem enabled us to use a bruteforce cryptanalysis: 1. The encryption and decryption algorithms are known. 2. There are only 25 keys to try. 3. The language of the plaintext is known and easily recognizable. In most networking situations, we can assume that the algorithms are known. What generally makes brute-force cryptanalysis impractical is the use of an algorithm that employs a large number of keys. For example, the triple DES algorithm, examined in Chapter 6, makes use of a 168-bit key, giving a key space of 2168 or greater than 3.7 * 1050 possible keys.

PHHW PH DIWHU WKH WRJD SDUWB KEY 1

oggv og chvgt vjg vqic rctva

2

nffu nf bgufs uif uphb qbsuz

3

meet me after the toga party

4

ldds ld zesdq sgd snfz ozqsx

5

kccr kc ydrcp rfc rmey nyprw

6

jbbq jb xcqbo qeb qldx mxoqv

7

iaap ia wbpan pda pkcw lwnpu

8

hzzo hz vaozm ocz ojbv kvmot

9

gyyn gy uznyl nby niau julns

10

fxxm fx tymxk max mhzt itkmr

11

ewwl ew sxlwj lzw lgys hsjlq

12

dvvk dv rwkvi kyv kfxr grikp

13

cuuj cu qvjuh jxu jewq fqhjo

14

btti bt puitg iwt idvp epgin

15

assh as othsf hvs hcuo dofhm

16

zrrg zr nsgre gur gbtn cnegl

17

yqqf yq mrfqd ftq fasm bmdfk

18

xppe xp lqepc esp ezrl alcej

19

wood wo kpdob dro dyqk zkbdi

20

vnnc vn jocna cqn cxpj yjach

21

ummb um inbmz bpm bwoi xizbg

22

tlla tl hmaly aol avnh whyaf

23

skkz sk glzkx znk zumg vgxze

24

rjjy rj fkyjw ymj ytlf ufwyd

25

qiix qi ejxiv xli xske tevxc

Figure 2.3 Brute-Force Cryptanalysis of Caesar Cipher

2.2 / SUBSTITUTION TECHNIQUES

Figure 2.4

41

Sample of Compressed Text

The third characteristic is also significant. If the language of the plaintext is unknown, then plaintext output may not be recognizable. Furthermore, the input may be abbreviated or compressed in some fashion, again making recognition difficult. For example, Figure 2.4 shows a portion of a text file compressed using an algorithm called ZIP. If this file is then encrypted with a simple substitution cipher (expanded to include more than just 26 alphabetic characters), then the plaintext may not be recognized when it is uncovered in the brute-force cryptanalysis.

Monoalphabetic Ciphers With only 25 possible keys, the Caesar cipher is far from secure. A dramatic increase in the key space can be achieved by allowing an arbitrary substitution. Before proceeding, we define the term permutation. A permutation of a finite set of elements S is an ordered sequence of all the elements of S , with each element appearing exactly once. For example, if S = {a, b, c} , there are six permutations of S : abc, acb, bac, bca, cab, cba In general, there are n! permutations of a set of n elements, because the first element can be chosen in one of n ways, the second in n - 1 ways, the third in n - 2 ways, and so on. Recall the assignment for the Caesar cipher: plain: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z cipher: D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A B C If, instead, the “cipher” line can be any permutation of the 26 alphabetic characters, then there are 26! or greater than 4 * 1026 possible keys. This is 10 orders of magnitude greater than the key space for DES and would seem to eliminate brute-force techniques for cryptanalysis. Such an approach is referred to as a monoalphabetic substitution cipher, because a single cipher alphabet (mapping from plain alphabet to cipher alphabet) is used per message. There is, however, another line of attack. If the cryptanalyst knows the nature of the plaintext (e.g., noncompressed English text), then the analyst can exploit the regularities of the language. To see how such a cryptanalysis might

42

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

proceed, we give a partial example here that is adapted from one in [SINK66]. The ciphertext to be solved is UZQSOVUOHXMOPVGPOZPEVSGZWSZOPFPESXUDBMETSXAIZ VUEPHZHMDZSHZOWSFPAPPDTSVPQUZWYMXUZUHSX EPYEPOPDZSZUFPOMBZWPFUPZHMDJUDTMOHMQ As a first step, the relative frequency of the letters can be determined and compared to a standard frequency distribution for English, such as is shown in Figure 2.5 (based on [LEWA00]). If the message were long enough, this technique alone might be sufficient, but because this is a relatively short message, we cannot expect an exact match. In any case, the relative frequencies of the letters in the ciphertext (in percentages) are as follows: P 13.33 Z 11.67 S 8.33 U 8.33 O 7.50 M 6.67

5.83 5.00 5.00 4.17 4.17

F W Q T A

3.33 3.33 2.50 2.50 1.67

B G Y I J

1.67 1.67 1.67 0.83 0.83

C K L N R

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

12.702

14

H D E V X

9.056

12

0

A

Figure 2.5

B

C

D

E

H

I

J

K

M N

O

Relative Frequency of Letters in English Text

P

Q

R

S

T

U

1.974

V W X

0.074

0.150

0.978

0.095 L

2.360

2.758

1.929

2.406

G

0.772

F

0.153

2.228

2

2.015

1.492

2.782

4

4.025

4.253

6

6.327

5.987

7.507

6.749

6.094

8

6.996

8.167

Relative frequency (%)

10

Y

Z

2.2 / SUBSTITUTION TECHNIQUES

43

Comparing this breakdown with Figure 2.5, it seems likely that cipher letters P and Z are the equivalents of plain letters e and t, but it is not certain which is which. The letters S, U, O, M, and H are all of relatively high frequency and probably correspond to plain letters from the set {a, h, i, n, o, r, s}. The letters with the lowest frequencies (namely, A, B, G, Y, I, J) are likely included in the set {b, j, k, q, v, x, z}. There are a number of ways to proceed at this point. We could make some tentative assignments and start to fill in the plaintext to see if it looks like a reasonable “skeleton” of a message. A more systematic approach is to look for other regularities. For example, certain words may be known to be in the text. Or we could look for repeating sequences of cipher letters and try to deduce their plaintext equivalents. A powerful tool is to look at the frequency of two-letter combinations, known as digrams. A table similar to Figure 2.5 could be drawn up showing the relative frequency of digrams. The most common such digram is th. In our ciphertext, the most common digram is ZW, which appears three times. So we make the correspondence of Z with t and W with h. Then, by our earlier hypothesis, we can equate P with e. Now notice that the sequence ZWP appears in the ciphertext, and we can translate that sequence as “the.” This is the most frequent trigram (three-letter combination) in English, which seems to indicate that we are on the right track. Next, notice the sequence ZWSZ in the first line. We do not know that these four letters form a complete word, but if they do, it is of the form th_t. If so, S equates with a. So far, then, we have UZQSOVUOHXMOPVGPOZPEVSGZWSZOPFPESXUDBMETSXAIZ t a e e te a that e e a a VUEPHZHMDZSHZOWSFPAPPDTSVPQUZWYMXUZUHSX e t ta t ha e ee a e th t a EPYEPOPDZSZUFPOMBZWPFUPZHMDJUDTMOHMQ e e e tat e the t Only four letters have been identified, but already we have quite a bit of the message. Continued analysis of frequencies plus trial and error should easily yield a solution from this point. The complete plaintext, with spaces added between words, follows: it was disclosed yesterday that several informal but direct contacts have been made with political representatives of the viet cong in moscow Monoalphabetic ciphers are easy to break because they reflect the frequency data of the original alphabet. A countermeasure is to provide multiple substitutes, known as homophones, for a single letter. For example, the letter e could be assigned a number of different cipher symbols, such as 16, 74, 35, and 21, with each homophone assigned to a letter in rotation or randomly. If the number of symbols assigned to each letter is proportional to the relative frequency of that letter, then single-letter frequency information is completely obliterated. The great mathematician Carl

44

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

Friedrich Gauss believed that he had devised an unbreakable cipher using homophones. However, even with homophones, each element of plaintext affects only one element of ciphertext, and multiple-letter patterns (e.g., digram frequencies) still survive in the ciphertext, making cryptanalysis relatively straightforward. Two principal methods are used in substitution ciphers to lessen the extent to which the structure of the plaintext survives in the ciphertext: One approach is to encrypt multiple letters of plaintext, and the other is to use multiple cipher alphabets. We briefly examine each.

Playfair Cipher The best-known multiple-letter encryption cipher is the Playfair, which treats digrams in the plaintext as single units and translates these units into ciphertext digrams.3 The Playfair algorithm is based on the use of a 5 × 5 matrix of letters constructed using a keyword. Here is an example, solved by Lord Peter Wimsey in Dorothy Sayers’s Have His Carcase:4 M C E L U

O H F P V

N Y G Q W

A B I/J S X

R D K T Z

In this case, the keyword is monarchy. The matrix is constructed by filling in the letters of the keyword (minus duplicates) from left to right and from top to bottom, and then filling in the remainder of the matrix with the remaining letters in alphabetic order. The letters I and J count as one letter. Plaintext is encrypted two letters at a time, according to the following rules: 1. Repeating plaintext letters that are in the same pair are separated with a filler letter, such as x, so that balloon would be treated as ba lx lo on. 2. Two plaintext letters that fall in the same row of the matrix are each replaced by the letter to the right, with the first element of the row circularly following the last. For example, ar is encrypted as RM. 3. Two plaintext letters that fall in the same column are each replaced by the letter beneath, with the top element of the column circularly following the last. For example, mu is encrypted as CM. 4. Otherwise, each plaintext letter in a pair is replaced by the letter that lies in its own row and the column occupied by the other plaintext letter. Thus, hs becomes BP and ea becomes IM (or JM, as the encipherer wishes). The Playfair cipher is a great advance over simple monoalphabetic ciphers. For one thing, whereas there are only 26 letters, there are 26 × 26 = 676 digrams, so 3

This cipher was actually invented by British scientist Sir Charles Wheatstone in 1854, but it bears the name of his friend Baron Playfair of St. Andrews, who championed the cipher at the British foreign office. 4 The book provides an absorbing account of a probable-word attack.

2.2 / SUBSTITUTION TECHNIQUES

45

that identification of individual digrams is more difficult. Furthermore, the relative frequencies of individual letters exhibit a much greater range than that of digrams, making frequency analysis much more difficult. For these reasons, the Playfair cipher was for a long time considered unbreakable. It was used as the standard field system by the British Army in World War I and still enjoyed considerable use by the U.S. Army and other Allied forces during World War II. Despite this level of confidence in its security, the Playfair cipher is relatively easy to break, because it still leaves much of the structure of the plaintext language intact. A few hundred letters of ciphertext are generally sufficient. One way of revealing the effectiveness of the Playfair and other ciphers is shown in Figure 2.6, based on [SIMM93]. The line labeled plaintext plots the frequency distribution of the more than 70,000 alphabetic characters in the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on cryptology.5 This is also the frequency distribution of any monoalphabetic substitution cipher, because the frequency values for individual letters are the same, just with different letters substituted for the original letters. The plot was developed in the following way: The number of occurrences of each letter in the text was counted and divided by the number of occurrences of the letter e (the most frequently used letter). As a result, e has a relative frequency of 1, t of about 0.76, and so on. The points on the horizontal axis correspond to the letters in order of decreasing frequency. Figure 2.6 also shows the frequency distribution that results when the text is encrypted using the Playfair cipher.To normalize the plot, the number of occurrences of each letter in the ciphertext was again divided by the number of occurrences of e

100 Plaintext

90 80

Playfair cipher

70 60 50 40 30 Vigenère cipher 20 Random polyalphabetic cipher

10 0

2

Figure 2.6 5

4

6

8

10 12 14 16 Frequency ranked letters

18

20

22

24

26

Relative Frequency of Occurrence of Letters

I am indebted to Gustavus Simmons for providing the plots and explaining their method of construction.

46

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

in the plaintext. The resulting plot therefore shows the extent to which the frequency distribution of letters, which makes it trivial to solve substitution ciphers, is masked by encryption. If the frequency distribution information were totally concealed in the encryption process, the ciphertext plot of frequencies would be flat, and cryptanalysis using ciphertext only would be effectively impossible. As the figure shows, the Playfair cipher has a flatter distribution than does plaintext, but nevertheless, it reveals plenty of structure for a cryptanalyst to work with.

Hill Cipher6 Another interesting multiletter cipher is the Hill cipher, developed by the mathematician Lester Hill in 1929. CONCEPTS FROM LINEAR ALGEBRA Before describing the Hill cipher, let us briefly review some terminology from linear algebra. In this discussion, we are concerned with matrix arithmetic modulo 26. For the reader who needs a refresher on matrix multiplication and inversion, see Appendix E. We define the inverse M - 1 of a square matrix M by the equation -1 M(M ) = M - 1M = I, where I is the identity matrix. I is a square matrix that is all zeros except for ones along the main diagonal from upper left to lower right. The inverse of a matrix does not always exist, but when it does, it satisfies the preceding equation. For example, A = a

5 17

8 b 3

A - 1 mod 26 = a

9 1

2 b 15

(5 * 9) + (8 * 1) (5 * 2) + (8 * 15) b (17 * 9) + (3 * 1) (17 * 2) + (3 * 15) 53 130 1 0 = a b mod 26 = a b 156 79 0 1

AA - 1 = a

To explain how the inverse of a matrix is computed, we begin by with the concept of determinant. For any square matrix (m × m), the determinant equals the sum of all the products that can be formed by taking exactly one element from each row and exactly one element from each column, with certain of the product terms preceded by a minus sign. For a 2 × 2 matrix, a

k11 k21

k12 b k22

the determinant is k11k22 - k12k21. For a 3 * 3 matrix, the value of the determinant is k11k22k33 + k21k32k13 + k31k12k23 - k31k22k13 - k21k12k33 - k11k32k23 . If a square matrix A has a nonzero determinant, then the inverse of the matrix is

6

This cipher is somewhat more difficult to understand than the others in this chapter, but it illustrates an important point about cryptanalysis that will be useful later on. This subsection can be skipped on a first reading.

2.2 / SUBSTITUTION TECHNIQUES

47

computed as [A-1]ij = (det A)-1(-1)i + j(Dji) , where ( Dji ) is the subdeterminant formed by deleting the j th row and the ith column of A, det(A) is the determinant of A, and (det A) - 1 is the multiplicative inverse of (det A) mod 26. Continuing our example, det a

5 17

8 b = (5 * 3) - (8 * 17) = -121 mod 26 = 9 3

We can show that 9 - 1 mod 26 = 3, because 9 * 3 = 27 mod 26 = 1 (see Chapter 4 or Appendix E). Therefore, we compute the inverse of A as A = a

8 b 3 3 -8 3 A - 1 mod 26 = 3a b = 3a -17 5 9 5 17

18 9 b = a 5 27

54 9 b = a 15 1

2 b 15

THE HILL ALGORITHM This encryption algorithm takes m successive plaintext letters and substitutes for them m ciphertext letters. The substitution is determined by m linear equations in which each character is assigned a numerical value (a = 0, b = 1, Á , z = 25). For m = 3, the system can be described as c1 = (k11p1 + k12p2 + k13p3) mod 26 c2 = (k21p1 + k22p2 + k23p3) mod 26 c3 = (k31p1 + k32p2 + k33p3) mod 26 This can be expressed in terms of row vectors and matrices:7 k11 (c1 c2 c3) = (p p2 p3) £ k21 k31

k12 k22 k32

k13 k23 ≥ mod 26 k33

or C = PK mod 26 where C and P are row vectors of length 3 representing the plaintext and ciphertext, and K is a 3 * 3 matrix representing the encryption key. Operations are performed mod 26. For example, consider the plaintext “paymoremoney” and use the encryption key 17 K = £ 21 2

17 18 2

5 21 ≥ 19

7 Some cryptography books express the plaintext and ciphertext as column vectors, so that the column vector is placed after the matrix rather than the row vector placed before the matrix. Sage uses row vectors, so we adopt that convention.

48

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

The first three letters of the plaintext are represented by the vector (15 0 24). Then (15 0 24)K = (303 303 531) mod 26 = (17 17 11) = RRL. Continuing in this fashion, the ciphertext for the entire plaintext is RRLMWBKASPDH. Decryption requires using the inverse of the matrix K. We can compute det K = 23, and therefore, (det K)-1 mod 26 = 17. We can then compute the inverse as K

-1

4 = £ 15 24

9 17 0

15 6 ≥ 17

15 443 6 ≥ = £ 858 17 494

442 495 52

This is demonstrated as 17 £ 21 2

17 18 2

5 4 21 ≥ £ 15 19 24

9 17 0

442 1 780 ≥ mod 26 = £ 0 365 0

0 1 0

0 0≥ 1

It is easily seen that if the matrix K - 1 is applied to the ciphertext, then the plaintext is recovered. In general terms, the Hill system can be expressed as C = E(K, P) = PK mod 26 P = D(K, C) = CK - 1 mod 26 = PKK - 1 = P As with Playfair, the strength of the Hill cipher is that it completely hides single-letter frequencies. Indeed, with Hill, the use of a larger matrix hides more frequency information. Thus, a 3 * 3 Hill cipher hides not only single-letter but also two-letter frequency information. Although the Hill cipher is strong against a ciphertext-only attack, it is easily broken with a known plaintext attack. For an m * m Hill cipher, suppose we have m plaintext–ciphertext pairs, each of length m . We label the pairs Pj = (p1j p1j Á pmj) and Cj = (c1j c1j Á cmj) such that Cj = PjK for 1 … j … m and for some unknown key matrix K. Now define two m * m matrices X = (pij) and Y = (cij) . Then we can form the matrix equation Y = XK. If X has an inverse, then we can determine K = X - 1Y. If X is not invertible, then a new version of X can be formed with additional plaintext–ciphertext pairs until an invertible X is obtained. Consider this example. Suppose that the plaintext “hillcipher” is encrypted using a 2 * 2 Hill cipher to yield the ciphertext HCRZSSXNSP. Thus, we know that (7 8)K mod 26 = (7 2) ; (11 11)K mod 26 = (17 25); and so on. Using the first two plaintext–ciphertext pairs, we have a

7 17

2 7 b = a 25 11

8 bK mod 26 11

The inverse of X can be computed: a

7 11

8 -1 25 b = a 11 1

22 b 23

2.2 / SUBSTITUTION TECHNIQUES

49

so K = a

25 1

22 7 ba 23 17

2 549 b = a 25 398

600 3 b mod 26 = a 577 8

2 b 5

This result is verified by testing the remaining plaintext–ciphertext pairs.

Polyalphabetic Ciphers Another way to improve on the simple monoalphabetic technique is to use different monoalphabetic substitutions as one proceeds through the plaintext message. The general name for this approach is polyalphabetic substitution cipher. All these techniques have the following features in common: 1. A set of related monoalphabetic substitution rules is used. 2. A key determines which particular rule is chosen for a given transformation. VIGENE` RE CIPHER The best known, and one of the simplest, polyalphabetic ciphers is the Vigenère cipher. In this scheme, the set of related monoalphabetic substitution rules consists of the 26 Caesar ciphers with shifts of 0 through 25. Each cipher is denoted by a key letter, which is the ciphertext letter that substitutes for the plaintext letter a. Thus, a Caesar cipher with a shift of 3 is denoted by the key value d . We can express the Vigenère cipher in the following manner. Assume a sequence of plaintext letters P = p0, p1, p2, Á , pn - 1 and a key consisting of the sequence of letters K = k0, k1, k2, Á , km - 1, where typically m < n. The sequence of ciphertext letters C = C0, C1, C2, Á , Cn - 1 is calculated as follows: C = C0, C1, C2, Á , Cn - 1 = E(K, P) = E[(k0, k1, k2, Á , km - 1), (p0, p1, p2, Á , pn - 1)] = (p0 + k0) mod 26, (p1 + k1) mod 26, Á , (pm - 1 + km - 1) mod 26, (pm + k0) mod 26, (pm + 1 + k1) mod 26, Á , (p2m - 1 + km - 1) mod 26, Á Thus, the first letter of the key is added to the first letter of the plaintext, mod 26, the second letters are added, and so on through the first m letters of the plaintext. For the next m letters of the plaintext, the key letters are repeated. This process continues until all of the plaintext sequence is encrypted. A general equation of the encryption process is Ci = (pi + ki mod m) mod 26

(2.3)

Compare this with Equation (2.1) for the Caesar cipher. In essence, each plaintext character is encrypted with a different Caesar cipher, depending on the corresponding key character. Similarly, decryption is a generalization of Equation (2.2): pi = (Ci - ki mod m) mod 26

(2.4)

To encrypt a message, a key is needed that is as long as the message. Usually, the key is a repeating keyword. For example, if the keyword is deceptive, the message “we are discovered save yourself” is encrypted as

50

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

deceptivedeceptivedeceptive wearediscoveredsaveyourself ZICVTWQNGRZGVTWAVZHCQYGLMGJ

key: plaintext: ciphertext:

Expressed numerically, we have the following result. key

3

4

2

4

15

19

8

21

4

3

4

2

4

15

plaintext

22

4

0

17

4

3

8

18

2

14

21

4

17

4

ciphertext

25

8

2

21

19

22

16

13

6

17

25

6

21

19

key

19

8

21

4

3

4

2

4

15

19

8

21

4

plaintext

3

18

0

21

4

24

14

20

17

18

4

11

5

ciphertext

22

0

21

25

7

2

16

24

6

11

12

6

9

The strength of this cipher is that there are multiple ciphertext letters for each plaintext letter, one for each unique letter of the keyword. Thus, the letter frequency information is obscured. However, not all knowledge of the plaintext structure is lost. For example, Figure 2.6 shows the frequency distribution for a Vigenère cipher with a keyword of length 9. An improvement is achieved over the Playfair cipher, but considerable frequency information remains. It is instructive to sketch a method of breaking this cipher, because the method reveals some of the mathematical principles that apply in cryptanalysis. First, suppose that the opponent believes that the ciphertext was encrypted using either monoalphabetic substitution or a Vigenère cipher. A simple test can be made to make a determination. If a monoalphabetic substitution is used, then the statistical properties of the ciphertext should be the same as that of the language of the plaintext. Thus, referring to Figure 2.5, there should be one cipher letter with a relative frequency of occurrence of about 12.7%, one with about 9.06%, and so on. If only a single message is available for analysis, we would not expect an exact match of this small sample with the statistical profile of the plaintext language. Nevertheless, if the correspondence is close, we can assume a monoalphabetic substitution. If, on the other hand, a Vigenère cipher is suspected, then progress depends on determining the length of the keyword, as will be seen in a moment. For now, let us concentrate on how the keyword length can be determined.The important insight that leads to a solution is the following: If two identical sequences of plaintext letters occur at a distance that is an integer multiple of the keyword length, they will generate identical ciphertext sequences. In the foregoing example, two instances of the sequence “red” are separated by nine character positions. Consequently, in both cases, r is encrypted using key letter e, e is encrypted using key letter p , and d is encrypted using key letter t . Thus, in both cases, the ciphertext sequence is VTW.We indicate this above by underlining the relevant ciphertext letters and shading the relevant ciphertext numbers. An analyst looking at only the ciphertext would detect the repeated sequences VTW at a displacement of 9 and make the assumption that the keyword is either three or nine letters in length. The appearance of VTW twice could be by chance

2.2 / SUBSTITUTION TECHNIQUES

51

and not reflect identical plaintext letters encrypted with identical key letters. However, if the message is long enough, there will be a number of such repeated ciphertext sequences. By looking for common factors in the displacements of the various sequences, the analyst should be able to make a good guess of the keyword length. Solution of the cipher now depends on an important insight. If the keyword length is m , then the cipher, in effect, consists of m monoalphabetic substitution ciphers. For example, with the keyword DECEPTIVE, the letters in positions 1, 10, 19, and so on are all encrypted with the same monoalphabetic cipher. Thus, we can use the known frequency characteristics of the plaintext language to attack each of the monoalphabetic ciphers separately. The periodic nature of the keyword can be eliminated by using a nonrepeating keyword that is as long as the message itself. Vigenère proposed what is referred to as an autokey system, in which a keyword is concatenated with the plaintext itself to provide a running key. For our example, key: plaintext: ciphertext:

deceptivewearediscoveredsav wearediscoveredsaveyourself ZICVTWQNGKZEIIGASXSTSLVVWLA

Even this scheme is vulnerable to cryptanalysis. Because the key and the plaintext share the same frequency distribution of letters, a statistical technique can be applied. For example, e enciphered by e, by Figure 2.5, can be expected to occur with a frequency of (0.127)2 L 0.016, whereas t enciphered by t would occur only about half as often. These regularities can be exploited to achieve successful cryptanalysis.8 VERNAM CIPHER The ultimate defense against such a cryptanalysis is to choose a keyword that is as long as the plaintext and has no statistical relationship to it. Such a system was introduced by an AT&T engineer named Gilbert Vernam in 1918. His system works on binary data (bits) rather than letters. The system can be expressed succinctly as follows (Figure 2.7): ci = pi 䊝 ki where pi = i th binary digit of plaintext ki = i th binary digit of key ci = i th binary digit of ciphertext 䊝 = exclusive-or (XOR) operation Compare this with Equation (2.3) for the Vigenère cipher.

8

Although the techniques for breaking a Vigenere ` cipher are by no means complex, a 1917 issue of Scientific American characterized this system as “impossible of translation.” This is a point worth remembering when similar claims are made for modern algorithms.

52

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES Key stream generator

Key stream generator

Cryptographic bit stream ( ki ) Plaintext ( pi )

Figure 2.7

Cryptographic bit stream ( ki ) Ciphertext ( ci )

Plaintext ( pi )

Vernam Cipher

Thus, the ciphertext is generated by performing the bitwise XOR of the plaintext and the key. Because of the properties of the XOR, decryption simply involves the same bitwise operation: pi = ci 䊝 ki which compares with Equation (2.4). The essence of this technique is the means of construction of the key. Vernam proposed the use of a running loop of tape that eventually repeated the key, so that in fact the system worked with a very long but repeating keyword. Although such a scheme, with a long key, presents formidable cryptanalytic difficulties, it can be broken with sufficient ciphertext, the use of known or probable plaintext sequences, or both.

One-Time Pad An Army Signal Corp officer, Joseph Mauborgne, proposed an improvement to the Vernam cipher that yields the ultimate in security. Mauborgne suggested using a random key that is as long as the message, so that the key need not be repeated. In addition, the key is to be used to encrypt and decrypt a single message, and then is discarded. Each new message requires a new key of the same length as the new message. Such a scheme, known as a one-time pad, is unbreakable. It produces random output that bears no statistical relationship to the plaintext. Because the ciphertext contains no information whatsoever about the plaintext, there is simply no way to break the code. An example should illustrate our point. Suppose that we are using a Vigenère scheme with 27 characters in which the twenty-seventh character is the space character, but with a one-time key that is as long as the message. Consider the ciphertext ANKYODKYUREPFJBYOJDSPLREYIUNOFDOIUERFPLUYTS We now show two different decryptions using two different keys: ciphertext: ANKYODKYUREPFJBYOJDSPLREYIUNOFDOIUERFPLUYTS key: pxlmvmsydofuyrvzwc tnlebnecvgdupahfzzlmnyih plaintext: mr mustard with the candlestick in the hall

2.3 / TRANSPOSITION TECHNIQUES

53

ciphertext: ANKYODKYUREPFJBYOJDSPLREYIUNOFDOIUERFPLUYTS mfugpmiydgaxgoufhklllmhsqdqogtewbqfgyovuhwt key: plaintext: miss scarlet with the knife in the library Suppose that a cryptanalyst had managed to find these two keys. Two plausible plaintexts are produced. How is the cryptanalyst to decide which is the correct decryption (i.e., which is the correct key)? If the actual key were produced in a truly random fashion, then the cryptanalyst cannot say that one of these two keys is more likely than the other. Thus, there is no way to decide which key is correct and therefore which plaintext is correct. In fact, given any plaintext of equal length to the ciphertext, there is a key that produces that plaintext. Therefore, if you did an exhaustive search of all possible keys, you would end up with many legible plaintexts, with no way of knowing which was the intended plaintext. Therefore, the code is unbreakable. The security of the one-time pad is entirely due to the randomness of the key. If the stream of characters that constitute the key is truly random, then the stream of characters that constitute the ciphertext will be truly random. Thus, there are no patterns or regularities that a cryptanalyst can use to attack the ciphertext. In theory, we need look no further for a cipher. The one-time pad offers complete security but, in practice, has two fundamental difficulties: 1. There is the practical problem of making large quantities of random keys. Any heavily used system might require millions of random characters on a regular basis. Supplying truly random characters in this volume is a significant task. 2. Even more daunting is the problem of key distribution and protection. For every message to be sent, a key of equal length is needed by both sender and receiver. Thus, a mammoth key distribution problem exists. Because of these difficulties, the one-time pad is of limited utility and is useful primarily for low-bandwidth channels requiring very high security. The one-time pad is the only cryptosystem that exhibits what is referred to as perfect secrecy. This concept is explored in Appendix F.

2.3 TRANSPOSITION TECHNIQUES All the techniques examined so far involve the substitution of a ciphertext symbol for a plaintext symbol. A very different kind of mapping is achieved by performing some sort of permutation on the plaintext letters. This technique is referred to as a transposition cipher. The simplest such cipher is the rail fence technique, in which the plaintext is written down as a sequence of diagonals and then read off as a sequence of rows. For example, to encipher the message “meet me after the toga party” with a rail fence of depth 2, we write the following: m e m a t r h t g p r y e t e f e t e o a a t

54

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

The encrypted message is MEMATRHTGPRYETEFETEOAAT This sort of thing would be trivial to cryptanalyze. A more complex scheme is to write the message in a rectangle, row by row, and read the message off, column by column, but permute the order of the columns. The order of the columns then becomes the key to the algorithm. For example, Key: Plaintext:

Ciphertext:

4 3 1 2 5 6 7 a t t a c k p o s t p o n e d u n t i l t w o a m x y z TTNAAPTMTSUOAODWCOIXKNLYPETZ

Thus, in this example, the key is 4312567. To encrypt, start with the column that is labeled 1, in this case column 3.Write down all the letters in that column. Proceed to column 4, which is labeled 2, then column 2, then column 1, then columns 5, 6, and 7. A pure transposition cipher is easily recognized because it has the same letter frequencies as the original plaintext. For the type of columnar transposition just shown, cryptanalysis is fairly straightforward and involves laying out the ciphertext in a matrix and playing around with column positions. Digram and trigram frequency tables can be useful. The transposition cipher can be made significantly more secure by performing more than one stage of transposition. The result is a more complex permutation that is not easily reconstructed. Thus, if the foregoing message is reencrypted using the same algorithm, Key: Input:

Output:

4 3 1 2 5 6 7 t t n a a p t m t s u o a o d w c o i x k n l y p e t z NSCYAUOPTTWLTMDNAOIEPAXTTOKZ

To visualize the result of this double transposition, designate the letters in the original plaintext message by the numbers designating their position. Thus, with 28 letters in the message, the original sequence of letters is 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 After the first transposition, we have 03 10 17 24 04 11 18 25 02 09 16 23 01 08 15 22 05 12 19 26 06 13 20 27 07 14 21 28

2.4 / ROTOR MACHINES

55

which has a somewhat regular structure. But after the second transposition, we have 17 09 05 27 24 16 12 07 10 02 22 20 03 25 15 13 04 23 19 14 11 01 26 21 18 08 06 28 This is a much less structured permutation and is much more difficult to cryptanalyze.

2.4 ROTOR MACHINES The example just given suggests that multiple stages of encryption can produce an algorithm that is significantly more difficult to cryptanalyze. This is as true of substitution ciphers as it is of transposition ciphers. Before the introduction of DES, the most important application of the principle of multiple stages of encryption was a class of systems known as rotor machines.9 The basic principle of the rotor machine is illustrated in Figure 2.8. The machine consists of a set of independently rotating cylinders through which electrical pulses can flow. Each cylinder has 26 input pins and 26 output pins, with internal wiring that connects each input pin to a unique output pin. For simplicity, only three of the internal connections in each cylinder are shown. If we associate each input and output pin with a letter of the alphabet, then a single cylinder defines a monoalphabetic substitution. For example, in Figure 2.8, if an operator depresses the key for the letter A, an electric signal is applied to the first pin of the first cylinder and flows through the internal connection to the twenty-fifth output pin. Consider a machine with a single cylinder.After each input key is depressed, the cylinder rotates one position, so that the internal connections are shifted accordingly. Thus, a different monoalphabetic substitution cipher is defined. After 26 letters of plaintext, the cylinder would be back to the initial position. Thus, we have a polyalphabetic substitution algorithm with a period of 26. A single-cylinder system is trivial and does not present a formidable cryptanalytic task. The power of the rotor machine is in the use of multiple cylinders, in which the output pins of one cylinder are connected to the input pins of the next. Figure 2.8 shows a three-cylinder system. The left half of the figure shows a position in which the input from the operator to the first pin (plaintext letter a) is routed through the three cylinders to appear at the output of the second pin (ciphertext letter B). With multiple cylinders, the one closest to the operator input rotates one pin position with each keystroke. The right half of Figure 2.8 shows the system’s configuration after a single keystroke. For every complete rotation of the inner cylinder, the middle cylinder rotates one pin position. Finally, for every complete rotation of the middle cylinder, the outer cylinder rotates one pin position. This is the same type of operation seen with an odometer. The result is that there are 26 * 26 * 26 = 17,576 different substitution alphabets used before the system

9

Machines based on the rotor principle were used by both Germany (Enigma) and Japan (Purple) in World War II. The breaking of both codes by the Allies was a significant factor in the war’s outcome.

56 Direction of motion

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

24 25 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

21 3 15 1 19 10 14 26 20 8 16 7 22 4 11 5 17 9 12 23 18 2 25 6 24 13

Fast rotor

Figure 2.8

26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

20 1 6 4 15 3 14 12 23 5 16 2 22 19 11 18 25 24 13 7 10 8 21 9 26 17

Medium rotor (a) Initial setting

Direction of motion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

8 18 26 17 20 22 10 3 13 11 4 23 5 24 9 12 25 16 19 6 15 21 2 7 1 14

Slow rotor

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

23 24 25 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

13 21 3 15 1 19 10 14 26 20 8 16 7 22 4 11 5 17 9 12 23 18 2 25 6 24

26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

20 1 6 4 15 3 14 12 23 5 16 2 22 19 11 18 25 24 13 7 10 8 21 9 26 17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

8 18 26 17 20 22 10 3 13 11 4 23 5 24 9 12 25 16 19 6 15 21 2 7 1 14

Slow rotor Fast rotor Medium rotor (b) Setting after one keystroke

Three-Rotor Machine with Wiring Represented by Numbered Contacts

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

2.5 / STEGANOGRAPHY

57

repeats. The addition of fourth and fifth rotors results in periods of 456,976 and 11,881,376 letters, respectively. As David Kahn eloquently put it, referring to a five-rotor machine [KAHN96, page 413]: A period of that length thwarts any practical possibility of a straightforward solution on the basis of letter frequency. This general solution would need about 50 letters per cipher alphabet, meaning that all five rotors would have to go through their combined cycle 50 times. The ciphertext would have to be as long as all the speeches made on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives in three successive sessions of Congress. No cryptanalyst is likely to bag that kind of trophy in his lifetime; even diplomats, who can be as verbose as politicians, rarely scale those heights of loquacity. The significance of the rotor machine today is that it points the way to the most widely used cipher ever: the Data Encryption Standard (DES). This we examine in Chapter 3.

2.5 STEGANOGRAPHY We conclude with a discussion of a technique that (strictly speaking), is not encryption, namely, steganography. A plaintext message may be hidden in one of two ways. The methods of steganography conceal the existence of the message, whereas the methods of cryptography render the message unintelligible to outsiders by various transformations of the text.10 A simple form of steganography, but one that is time-consuming to construct, is one in which an arrangement of words or letters within an apparently innocuous text spells out the real message. For example, the sequence of first letters of each word of the overall message spells out the hidden message. Figure 2.9 shows an example in which a subset of the words of the overall message is used to convey the hidden message. See if you can decipher this; it’s not too hard. Various other techniques have been used historically; some examples are the following [MYER91]: • Character marking: Selected letters of printed or typewritten text are overwritten in pencil. The marks are ordinarily not visible unless the paper is held at an angle to bright light. • Invisible ink: A number of substances can be used for writing but leave no visible trace until heat or some chemical is applied to the paper.

10

Steganography was an obsolete word that was revived by David Kahn and given the meaning it has today [KAHN96].

58

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

Figure 2.9 A Puzzle for Inspector Morse (From The Silent World of Nicholas Quinn, by Colin Dexter)

• Pin punctures: Small pin punctures on selected letters are ordinarily not visible unless the paper is held up in front of a light. • Typewriter correction ribbon: Used between lines typed with a black ribbon, the results of typing with the correction tape are visible only under a strong light. Although these techniques may seem archaic, they have contemporary equivalents. [WAYN93] proposes hiding a message by using the least significant bits of frames on a CD. For example, the Kodak Photo CD format’s maximum resolution is 2048  3072 pixels, with each pixel containing 24 bits of RGB color information. The least significant bit of each 24-bit pixel can be changed without greatly affecting the quality of the image. The result is that you can hide a 2.3-megabyte message in a single digital snapshot. There are now a number of software packages available that take this type of approach to steganography. Steganography has a number of drawbacks when compared to encryption. It requires a lot of overhead to hide a relatively few bits of information, although using a scheme like that proposed in the preceding paragraph may make it more effective.Also, once the system is discovered, it becomes virtually worthless. This problem, too, can be overcome if the insertion method depends on some sort of key (e.g., see Problem 2.20). Alternatively, a message can be first encrypted and then hidden using steganography. The advantage of steganography is that it can be employed by parties who have something to lose should the fact of their secret communication (not necessarily the content) be discovered. Encryption flags traffic as important or secret or may identify the sender or receiver as someone with something to hide.

2.6 / RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITES

59

2.6 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITES For anyone interested in the history of code making and code breaking, the book to read is [KAHN96]. Although it is concerned more with the impact of cryptology than its technical development, it is an excellent introduction and makes for exciting reading. Another excellent historical account is [SING99]. A short treatment covering the techniques of this chapter, and more, is [GARD72]. There are many books that cover classical cryptography in a more technical vein; one of the best is [SINK66]. [KORN96] is a delightful book to read and contains a lengthy section on classical techniques. Two cryptography books that contain a fair amount of technical material on classical techniques are [GARR01] and [NICH99]. For the truly interested reader, the two-volume [NICH96] covers numerous classical ciphers in detail and provides many ciphertexts to be cryptanalyzed, together with the solutions. An excellent treatment of rotor machines, including a discussion of their cryptanalysis is found in [KUMA97]. [KATZ00] provides a thorough treatment of steganography. Another good source is [WAYN96].

GARD72 Gardner, M. Codes, Ciphers, and Secret Writing. New York: Dover, 1972. GARR01 Garrett, P. Making, Breaking Codes: An Introduction to Cryptology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. KAHN96 Kahn, D. The Codebreakers: The Story of Secret Writing. New York: Scribner, 1996. KATZ00 Katzenbeisser, S., ed. Information Hiding Techniques for Steganography and Digital Watermarking. Boston: Artech House, 2000. KORN96 Korner, T. The Pleasures of Counting. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1996. KUMA97 Kumar, I. Cryptology. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1997. NICH96 Nichols, R. Classical Cryptography Course. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1996. NICH99 Nichols, R., ed. ICSA Guide to Cryptography. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999. SING99 Singh, S. The Code Book: The Science of Secrecy from Ancient Egypt to Quantum Cryptography. New York: Anchor Books, 1999. SINK66 Sinkov, A. Elementary Cryptanalysis: A Mathematical Approach. Washington, D.C.: The Mathematical Association of America, 1966. WAYN96 Wayner, P. Disappearing Cryptography. Boston: AP Professional Books, 1996.

Recommended Web Sites: • American Cryptogram Association: An association of amateur cryptographers. The Web site includes information and links to sites concerned with classical cryptography.

60

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES • Crypto Corner: Simon Singh’s Web site. Lots of good information, plus interactive tools for learning about cryptography. • Steganography: Good collection of links and documents.

2.7 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms block cipher brute-force attack Caesar cipher cipher ciphertext computationally secure conventional encryption cryptanalysis cryptographic system cryptography

cryptology deciphering decryption digram enciphering encryption Hill cipher monoalphabetic cipher one-time pad plaintext

Playfair cipher polyalphabetic cipher rail fence cipher single-key encryption steganography stream cipher symmetric encryption transposition cipher unconditionally secure Vigenère cipher

Review Questions 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14

What are the essential ingredients of a symmetric cipher? What are the two basic functions used in encryption algorithms? How many keys are required for two people to communicate via a cipher? What is the difference between a block cipher and a stream cipher? What are the two general approaches to attacking a cipher? List and briefly define types of cryptanalytic attacks based on what is known to the attacker. What is the difference between an unconditionally secure cipher and a computationally secure cipher? Briefly define the Caesar cipher. Briefly define the monoalphabetic cipher. Briefly define the Playfair cipher. What is the difference between a monoalphabetic cipher and a polyalphabetic cipher? What are two problems with the one-time pad? What is a transposition cipher? What is steganography?

Problems 2.1

A generalization of the Caesar cipher, known as the affine Caesar cipher, has the following form: For each plaintext letter p, substitute the ciphertext letter C: C = E([a, b], p) = (ap + b) mod 26

2.7 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

2.2 2.3

2.4

61

A basic requirement of any encryption algorithm is that it be one-to-one. That is, if p Z q , then E(k, p) Z E(k, q) . Otherwise, decryption is impossible, because more than one plaintext character maps into the same ciphertext character. The affine Caesar cipher is not one-to-one for all values of a. For example, for a = 2 and b = 3, then E([a, b], 0) = E([a, b], 13) = 3. a. Are there any limitations on the value of b? Explain why or why not. b. Determine which values of a are not allowed. c. Provide a general statement of which values of a are and are not allowed. Justify your statement. How many one-to-one affine Caesar ciphers are there? A ciphertext has been generated with an affine cipher. The most frequent letter of the ciphertext is ‘B’, and the second most frequent letter of the ciphertext is ‘U’. Break this code. The following ciphertext was generated using a simple substitution algorithm. 53‡‡†305))6*;4826)4‡.)4‡);806*;48†8¶60))85;;]8*;:‡*8†83 (88)5*†;46(;88*96*?;8)*‡(;485);5*†2:*‡(;4956*2(5*—4)8¶8* ;4069285);)6†8)4‡‡;1(‡9;48081;8:8‡1;48†85;4)485†528806*81 (‡9;48;(88;4(‡?34;48)4‡;161;:188;‡?;

2.5

Decrypt this message. Hints: 1. As you know, the most frequently occurring letter in English is e. Therefore, the first or second (or perhaps third?) most common character in the message is likely to stand for e. Also, e is often seen in pairs (e.g., meet, fleet, speed, seen, been, agree, etc.). Try to find a character in the ciphertext that decodes to e. 2. The most common word in English is “the.” Use this fact to guess the characters that stand for t and h. 3. Decipher the rest of the message by deducing additional words. Warning: The resulting message is in English but may not make much sense on a first reading. One way to solve the key distribution problem is to use a line from a book that both the sender and the receiver possess. Typically, at least in spy novels, the first sentence of a book serves as the key. The particular scheme discussed in this problem is from one of the best suspense novels involving secret codes, Talking to Strange Men, by Ruth Rendell. Work this problem without consulting that book! Consider the following message: SIDKHKDM AF HCRKIABIE SHIMC KD LFEAILA This ciphertext was produced using the first sentence of The Other Side of Silence (a book about the spy Kim Philby): The snow lay thick on the steps and the snowflakes driven by the wind looked black in the headlights of the cars.

2.6

A simple substitution cipher was used. a. What is the encryption algorithm? b. How secure is it? c. To make the key distribution problem simple, both parties can agree to use the first or last sentence of a book as the key. To change the key, they simply need to agree on a new book. The use of the first sentence would be preferable to the use of the last. Why? In one of his cases, Sherlock Holmes was confronted with the following message. 534 C2 13 127 36 31 4 17 21 41 DOUGLAS 109 293 5 37 BIRLSTONE 26 BIRLSTONE 9 127 171

62

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES

2.7

Although Watson was puzzled, Holmes was able immediately to deduce the type of cipher. Can you? This problem uses a real-world example, from an old U.S. Special Forces manual (public domain). A copy is available at this book’s Web site. a. Using the two keys (memory words) cryptographic and network security, encrypt the following message: Be at the third pillar from the left outside the lyceum theatre tonight at seven. If you are distrustful bring two friends.

2.8

Make reasonable assumptions about how to treat redundant letters and excess letters in the memory words and how to treat spaces and punctuation. Indicate what your assumptions are. Note: The message is from the Sherlock Holmes novel, The Sign of Four. b. Decrypt the ciphertext. Show your work. c. Comment on when it would be appropriate to use this technique and what its advantages are. A disadvantage of the general monoalphabetic cipher is that both sender and receiver must commit the permuted cipher sequence to memory. A common technique for avoiding this is to use a keyword from which the cipher sequence can be generated. For example, using the keyword CIPHER, write out the keyword followed by unused letters in normal order and match this against the plaintext letters: plain: cipher:

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z C I P H E R A B D F G J K L M N O Q S T U V W X Y Z

If it is felt that this process does not produce sufficient mixing, write the remaining letters on successive lines and then generate the sequence by reading down the columns: C A K S Y

I B L T Z

P D M U

H F N V

E G O W

R J Q X

This yields the sequence: C A K S Y I B L T Z P D M U H F N V E G O W R J Q X

2.9

Such a system is used in the example in Section 2.2 (the one that begins “it was disclosed yesterday”). Determine the keyword. When the PT-109 American patrol boat, under the command of Lieutenant John F. Kennedy, was sunk by a Japanese destroyer, a message was received at an Australian wireless station in Playfair code: KXJEY KREHE BOTEI GDSON

2.10

UREBE GOYFI ZONTX SXBOU

ZWEHE WTTTU BYBNT YWRHE

WRYTU OLKSY GONEY BAAHY

HEYFS CAJPO CUZWR USEDQ

The key used was royal new zealand navy. Decrypt the message. Translate TT into tt. a. Construct a Playfair matrix with the key largest. b. Construct a Playfair matrix with the key occurrence. Make a reasonable assumption about how to treat redundant letters in the key.

2.7 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS 2.11

2.12

2.13 2.14

2.15

2.16

63

a. Using this Playfair matrix: M

F

U

N

Z

V

E

L

D

S

H

I/J

K

O

P

Q

W

X

Y

A

R

G

T

B

C

Encrypt this message: Must see you over Cadogan West. Coming at once. Note: The message is from the Sherlock Holmes story, The Adventure of the BrucePartington Plans. b. Repeat part (a) using the Playfair matrix from Problem 2.10a. c. How do you account for the results of this problem? Can you generalize your conclusion? a. How many possible keys does the Playfair cipher have? Ignore the fact that some keys might produce identical encryption results. Express your answer as an approximate power of 2. b. Now take into account the fact that some Playfair keys produce the same encryption results. How many effectively unique keys does the Playfair cipher have? What substitution system results when we use a 25 × 1 Playfair matrix? a. Encrypt the message “meet me at the usual place at ten rather than eight oclock” 9 4 b . Show your calculations and the result. using the Hill cipher with the key a 5 7 b. Show the calculations for the corresponding decryption of the ciphertext to recover the original plaintext. We have shown that the Hill cipher succumbs to a known plaintext attack if sufficient plaintext–ciphertext pairs are provided. It is even easier to solve the Hill cipher if a chosen plaintext attack can be mounted. Describe such an attack. a b b requires that (ad - bc) It can be shown that the Hill cipher with the matrix a c d is relatively prime to 26; that is, the only common positive integer factor of (ad - bc) and 26 is 1. Thus, if (ad - bc) = 13 or is even, the matrix is not allowed. Determine the number of different (good) keys there are for a 2 × 2 Hill cipher without counting them one by one, using the following steps: a. Find the number of matrices whose determinant is even because one or both rows are even. (A row is “even” if both entries in the row are even.) b. Find the number of matrices whose determinant is even because one or both columns are even. (A column is “even” if both entries in the column are even.) c. Find the number of matrices whose determinant is even because all of the entries are odd. d. Taking into account overlaps, find the total number of matrices whose determinant is even. e. Find the number of matrices whose determinant is a multiple of 13 because the first column is a multiple of 13. f. Find the number of matrices whose determinant is a multiple of 13 where the first column is not a multiple of 13 but the second column is a multiple of the first modulo 13. g. Find the total number of matrices whose determinant is a multiple of 13. h. Find the number of matrices whose determinant is a multiple of 26 because they fit cases parts (a) and (e), (b) and (e), (c) and (e), (a) and (f), and so on. i. Find the total number of matrices whose determinant is neither a multiple of 2 nor a multiple of 13.

64

CHAPTER 2 / CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION TECHNIQUES 2.17 2.18

2.19 2.20

Using the Vigenère cipher, encrypt the word “explanation” using the key leg. This problem explores the use of a one-time pad version of the Vigenère cipher. In this scheme, the key is a stream of random numbers between 0 and 26. For example, if the key is 3 19 5..., then the first letter of plaintext is encrypted with a shift of 3 letters, the second with a shift of 19 letters, the third with a shift of 5 letters, and so on. a. Encrypt the plaintext sendmoremoney with the key stream 9 0 1 7 23 15 21 14 11 11 2 8 9 b. Using the ciphertext produced in part (a), find a key so that the cipher text decrypts to the plaintext cashnotneeded. What is the message embedded in Figure 2.9? In one of Dorothy Sayers’s mysteries, Lord Peter is confronted with the message shown in Figure 2.10. He also discovers the key to the message, which is a sequence of integers: 787656543432112343456567878878765654 3432112343456567878878765654433211234 a. Decrypt the message. Hint: What is the largest integer value? b. If the algorithm is known but not the key, how secure is the scheme? c. If the key is known but not the algorithm, how secure is the scheme?

Programming Problems 2.21 2.22

Write a program that can encrypt and decrypt using the general Caesar cipher, also known as an additive cipher. Write a program that can encrypt and decrypt using the affine cipher described in Problem 2.1.

Figure 2.10 A Puzzle for Lord Peter

2.7 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS 2.23

2.24

2.25 2.26

65

Write a program that can perform a letter frequency attack on an additive cipher without human intervention. Your software should produce possible plaintexts in rough order of likelihood. It would be good if your user interface allowed the user to specify “give me the top 10 possible plaintexts.” Write a program that can perform a letter frequency attack on any monoalphabetic substitution cipher without human intervention. Your software should produce possible plaintexts in rough order of likelihood. It would be good if your user interface allowed the user to specify “give me the top 10 possible plaintexts.” Create software that can encrypt and decrypt using a 2 × 2 Hill cipher. Create software that can perform a fast known plaintext attack on a Hill cipher, given the dimension m. How fast are your algorithms, as a function of m?

CHAPTER

BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD 3.1

Block Cipher Principles Stream Ciphers and Block Ciphers Motivation for the Feistel Cipher Structure The Feistel Cipher

3.2

The Data Encryption Standard DES Encryption DES Decryption

3.3

A Des Example Results The Avalanche Effect

3.4

The Strength of Des The Use of 56-Bit Keys The Nature of the DES Algorithm Timing Attacks

3.5

Differential and Linear Cryptanalysis Differential Cryptanalysis Linear Cryptanalysis

3.6

Block Cipher Design Principles DES Design Criteria Number of Rounds Design of Function F Key Schedule Algorithm

66

3.7

Recommended Reading and Web Site

3.8

Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

3.1 / BLOCK CIPHER PRINCIPLES

67

All the afternoon Mungo had been working on Stern’s code, principally with the aid of the latest messages which he had copied down at the Nevin Square drop. Stern was very confident. He must be well aware London Central knew about that drop. It was obvious that they didn’t care how often Mungo read their messages, so confident were they in the impenetrability of the code. —Talking to Strange Men, Ruth Rendell

KEY POINTS ◆

◆

◆

◆

A block cipher is an encryption/decryption scheme in which a block of plaintext is treated as a whole and used to produce a ciphertext block of equal length. Many block ciphers have a Feistel structure. Such a structure consists of a number of identical rounds of processing. In each round, a substitution is performed on one half of the data being processed, followed by a permutation that interchanges the two halves. The original key is expanded so that a different key is used for each round. The Data Encryption Standard (DES) has been the most widely used encryption algorithm until recently. It exhibits the classic Feistel structure. DES uses a 64-bit block and a 56-bit key. Two important methods of cryptanalysis are differential cryptanalysis and linear cryptanalysis. DES has been shown to be highly resistant to these two types of attack.

The objective of this chapter is to illustrate the principles of modern symmetric ciphers. For this purpose, we focus on the most widely used symmetric cipher: the Data Encryption Standard (DES). Although numerous symmetric ciphers have been developed since the introduction of DES, and although it is destined to be replaced by the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), DES remains the most important such algorithm. Furthermore, a detailed study of DES provides an understanding of the principles used in other symmetric ciphers. This chapter begins with a discussion of the general principles of symmetric block ciphers, which are the type of symmetric ciphers studied in this book (with the exception of the stream cipher RC4 in Chapter 7). Next, we cover full DES. Following this look at a specific algorithm, we return to a more general discussion of block cipher design. Compared to public-key ciphers, such as RSA, the structure of DES and most symmetric ciphers is very complex and cannot be explained as easily as RSA and similar algorithms. Accordingly, the reader may wish to begin with a simplified version of DES, which is described in Appendix G. This version allows the reader to perform encryption and decryption by hand and gain a good understanding of the working of

68

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

the algorithm details. Classroom experience indicates that a study of this simplified version enhances understanding of DES.1

3.1 BLOCK CIPHER PRINCIPLES Many symmetric block encryption algorithms in current use are based on a structure referred to as a Feistel block cipher [FEIS73]. For that reason, it is important to examine the design principles of the Feistel cipher. We begin with a comparison of stream ciphers and block ciphers. Then we discuss the motivation for the Feistel block cipher structure. Finally, we discuss some of its implications.

Stream Ciphers and Block Ciphers A stream cipher is one that encrypts a digital data stream one bit or one byte at a time. Examples of classical stream ciphers are the autokeyed Vigenère cipher and the Vernam cipher. In the ideal case, a one-time pad version of the Vernam cipher would be used (Figure 2.7), in which the keystream (ki) is as long as the plaintext bit stream (pi). If the cryptographic keystream is random, then this cipher is unbreakable by any means other than acquiring the keystream. However, the keystream must be provided to both users in advance via some independent and secure channel. This introduces insurmountable logistical problems if the intended data traffic is very large. Accordingly, for practical reasons, the bit-stream generator must be implemented as an algorithmic procedure, so that the cryptographic bit stream can be produced by both users. In this approach (Figure 3.1a), the bit-stream generator is a key-controlled algorithm and must produce a bit stream that is cryptographically strong. Now, the two users need only share the generating key, and each can produce the keystream. A block cipher is one in which a block of plaintext is treated as a whole and used to produce a ciphertext block of equal length. Typically, a block size of 64 or 128 bits is used. As with a stream cipher, the two users share a symmetric encryption key (Figure 3.1b). Using some of the modes of operation explained in Chapter 6, a block cipher can be used to achieve the same effect as a stream cipher. Far more effort has gone into analyzing block ciphers. In general, they seem applicable to a broader range of applications than stream ciphers. The vast majority of network-based symmetric cryptographic applications make use of block ciphers. Accordingly, the concern in this chapter, and in our discussions throughout the book of symmetric encryption, will primarily focus on block ciphers.

Motivation for the Feistel Cipher Structure A block cipher operates on a plaintext block of n bits to produce a ciphertext block of n bits. There are 2n possible different plaintext blocks and, for the encryption to be reversible (i.e., for decryption to be possible), each must

1

However, you may safely skip Appendix G, at least on a first reading. If you get lost or bogged down in the details of DES, then you can go back and start with simplified DES.

3.1 / BLOCK CIPHER PRINCIPLES Bit-stream generation algorithm

Key ( K)

69

Bit-stream generation algorithm

Key ( K)

Cryptographic bit stream ( ki )

Cryptographic bit stream ( ki ) Plaintext ( pi )

Ciphertext ( ci )

Plaintext ( pi )

(a) Stream cipher using algorithmic bit-stream generator b bits Plaintext Key (K)

Encryption algorithm

Ciphertext b bits (b) Block cipher

Figure 3.1

Stream Cipher and Block Cipher

produce a unique ciphertext block. Such a transformation is called reversible, or nonsingular. The following examples illustrate nonsingular and singular transformations for n = 2. Reversible Mapping

Irreversible Mapping

Plaintext

Ciphertext

Plaintext

Ciphertext

00 01 10 11

11 10 00 01

00 01 10 11

11 10 01 01

In the latter case, a ciphertext of 01 could have been produced by one of two plaintext blocks. So if we limit ourselves to reversible mappings, the number of different transformations is 2n!.2 Figure 3.2 illustrates the logic of a general substitution cipher for n = 4. A 4-bit input produces one of 16 possible input states, which is mapped by the substitution cipher into a unique one of 16 possible output states, each of which is represented by 4 ciphertext bits. The encryption and decryption mappings can be 2

The reasoning is as follows: For the first plaintext, we can choose any of 2n ciphertext blocks. For the second plaintext, we choose from among 2n - 1 remaining ciphertext blocks, and so on.

70

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD 4-bit input

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

4 to 16 decoder 6 7 8 9

6 7 8 9 16 to 4 encoder

10

11

12

13

14

15

10

11

12

13

14

15

4-bit output

Figure 3.2

General n-bit-n-bit Block Substitution (shown with n = 4)

defined by a tabulation, as shown in Table 3.1. This is the most general form of block cipher and can be used to define any reversible mapping between plaintext and ciphertext. Feistel refers to this as the ideal block cipher, because it allows for the maximum number of possible encryption mappings from the plaintext block [FEIS75]. Table 3.1 Encryption and Decryption Tables for Substitution Cipher of Figure 3.2 Plaintext

Ciphertext

Ciphertext

Plaintext

0000

1110

0000

1110

0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111

0100 1101 0001 0010 1111 1011 1000 0011 1010 0110 1100 0101 1001 0000 0111

0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111

0011 0100 1000 0001 1100 1010 1111 0111 1101 1001 0110 1011 0010 0000 0101

3.1 / BLOCK CIPHER PRINCIPLES

71

But there is a practical problem with the ideal block cipher. If a small block size, such as n = 4 , is used, then the system is equivalent to a classical substitution cipher. Such systems, as we have seen, are vulnerable to a statistical analysis of the plaintext. This weakness is not inherent in the use of a substitution cipher but rather results from the use of a small block size. If n is sufficiently large and an arbitrary reversible substitution between plaintext and ciphertext is allowed, then the statistical characteristics of the source plaintext are masked to such an extent that this type of cryptanalysis is infeasible. An arbitrary reversible substitution cipher (the ideal block cipher) for a large block size is not practical, however, from an implementation and performance point of view. For such a transformation, the mapping itself constitutes the key. Consider again Table 3.1, which defines one particular reversible mapping from plaintext to ciphertext for n = 4 . The mapping can be defined by the entries in the second column, which show the value of the ciphertext for each plaintext block. This, in essence, is the key that determines the specific mapping from among all possible mappings. In this case, using this straightforward method of defining the key, the required key length is (4 bits) * (16 rows) = 64 bits. In general, for an n-bit ideal block cipher, the length of the key defined in this fashion is n * 2n bits. For a 64-bit block, which is a desirable length to thwart statistical attacks, the required key length is 64 * 264 = 270 L 1021 bits. In considering these difficulties, Feistel points out that what is needed is an approximation to the ideal block cipher system for large n, built up out of components that are easily realizable [FEIS75]. But before turning to Feistel’s approach, let us make one other observation. We could use the general block substitution cipher but, to make its implementation tractable, confine ourselves to a subset of the 2n! possible reversible mappings. For example, suppose we define the mapping in terms of a set of linear equations. In the case of n = 4, we have y1 y2 y3 y4

= = = =

k11x1 k21x1 k31x1 k41x1

+ + + +

k12x2 k22x2 k32x2 k42x2

+ + + +

k13x3 k23x3 k33x3 k43x3

+ + + +

k14x4 k24x4 k34x4 k44x4

where the xi are the four binary digits of the plaintext block, the yi are the four binary digits of the ciphertext block, the kij are the binary coefficients, and arithmetic is mod 2. The key size is just n2, in this case 16 bits. The danger with this kind of formulation is that it may be vulnerable to cryptanalysis by an attacker that is aware of the structure of the algorithm. In this example, what we have is essentially the Hill cipher discussed in Chapter 2, applied to binary data rather than characters. As we saw in Chapter 2, a simple linear system such as this is quite vulnerable.

The Feistel Cipher Feistel proposed [FEIS73] that we can approximate the ideal block cipher by utilizing the concept of a product cipher, which is the execution of two or more simple ciphers in sequence in such a way that the final result or product is cryptographically stronger than any of the component ciphers. The essence of the approach is to develop a block

72

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

cipher with a key length of k bits and a block length of n bits, allowing a total of 2k possible transformations, rather than the 2n! transformations available with the ideal block cipher. In particular, Feistel proposed the use of a cipher that alternates substitutions and permutations, where these terms are defined as follows: • Substitution: Each plaintext element or group of elements is uniquely replaced by a corresponding ciphertext element or group of elements. • Permutation: A sequence of plaintext elements is replaced by a permutation of that sequence. That is, no elements are added or deleted or replaced in the sequence, rather the order in which the elements appear in the sequence is changed. In fact, Feistel’s is a practical application of a proposal by Claude Shannon to develop a product cipher that alternates confusion and diffusion functions [SHAN49].3 We look next at these concepts of diffusion and confusion and then present the Feistel cipher. But first, it is worth commenting on this remarkable fact: The Feistel cipher structure, which dates back over a quarter century and which, in turn, is based on Shannon’s proposal of 1945, is the structure used by many significant symmetric block ciphers currently in use. DIFFUSION AND CONFUSION The terms diffusion and confusion were introduced by Claude Shannon to capture the two basic building blocks for any cryptographic system [SHAN49]. Shannon’s concern was to thwart cryptanalysis based on statistical analysis. The reasoning is as follows. Assume the attacker has some knowledge of the statistical characteristics of the plaintext. For example, in a human-readable message in some language, the frequency distribution of the various letters may be known. Or there may be words or phrases likely to appear in the message (probable words). If these statistics are in any way reflected in the ciphertext, the cryptanalyst may be able to deduce the encryption key, part of the key, or at least a set of keys likely to contain the exact key. In what Shannon refers to as a strongly ideal cipher, all statistics of the ciphertext are independent of the particular key used. The arbitrary substitution cipher that we discussed previously (Figure 3.2) is such a cipher, but as we have seen, it is impractical.4 Other than recourse to ideal systems, Shannon suggests two methods for frustrating statistical cryptanalysis: diffusion and confusion. In diffusion, the statistical structure of the plaintext is dissipated into long-range statistics of the ciphertext. This is achieved by having each plaintext digit affect the value of many ciphertext digits; generally, this is equivalent to having each ciphertext digit be affected by

3

The paper is available at this book’s Web site. Shannon’s 1949 paper appeared originally as a classified report in 1945. Shannon enjoys an amazing and unique position in the history of computer and information science. He not only developed the seminal ideas of modern cryptography but is also responsible for inventing the discipline of information theory. Based on his work in information theory, he developed a formula for the capacity of a data communications channel, which is still used today. In addition, he founded another discipline, the application of Boolean algebra to the study of digital circuits; this last he managed to toss off as a master’s thesis. 4 Appendix F expands on Shannon’s concepts concerning measures of secrecy and the security of cryptographic algorithms.

3.1 / BLOCK CIPHER PRINCIPLES

73

many plaintext digits. An example of diffusion is to encrypt a message M = m1, m2, m3, . . . of characters with an averaging operation: k

yn = a a mn + i b mod 26 i=1

adding k successive letters to get a ciphertext letter yn . One can show that the statistical structure of the plaintext has been dissipated. Thus, the letter frequencies in the ciphertext will be more nearly equal than in the plaintext; the digram frequencies will also be more nearly equal, and so on. In a binary block cipher, diffusion can be achieved by repeatedly performing some permutation on the data followed by applying a function to that permutation; the effect is that bits from different positions in the original plaintext contribute to a single bit of ciphertext.5 Every block cipher involves a transformation of a block of plaintext into a block of ciphertext, where the transformation depends on the key. The mechanism of diffusion seeks to make the statistical relationship between the plaintext and ciphertext as complex as possible in order to thwart attempts to deduce the key. On the other hand, confusion seeks to make the relationship between the statistics of the ciphertext and the value of the encryption key as complex as possible, again to thwart attempts to discover the key. Thus, even if the attacker can get some handle on the statistics of the ciphertext, the way in which the key was used to produce that ciphertext is so complex as to make it difficult to deduce the key. This is achieved by the use of a complex substitution algorithm. In contrast, a simple linear substitution function would add little confusion. As [ROBS95b] points out, so successful are diffusion and confusion in capturing the essence of the desired attributes of a block cipher that they have become the cornerstone of modern block cipher design. FEISTEL CIPHER STRUCTURE The left-hand side of Figure 3.3 depicts the structure proposed by Feistel. The inputs to the encryption algorithm are a plaintext block of length 2w bits and a key K . The plaintext block is divided into two halves, L0 and R0. The two halves of the data pass through n rounds of processing and then combine to produce the ciphertext block. Each round i has as inputs Li - 1 and Ri - 1 derived from the previous round, as well as a subkey Ki derived from the overall K . In general, the subkeys Ki are different from K and from each other. In Figure 3.3, 16 rounds are used, although any number of rounds could be implemented. All rounds have the same structure. A substitution is performed on the left half of the data. This is done by applying a round function F to the right half of the data and then taking the exclusive-OR of the output of that function and the left half of the data. The round function has the same general structure for each round but is parameterized by the round subkey Ki . Another way to express this is to say that F is a function of right-half block of w bits and a subkey of y bits, which produces an output value of length w bits: F(REi, Ki + 1). Following this substitution, a

5

Some books on cryptography equate permutation with diffusion. This is incorrect. Permutation, by itself, does not change the statistics of the plaintext at the level of individual letters or permuted blocks. For example, in DES, the permutation swaps two 32-bit blocks, so statistics of strings of 32 bits or less are preserved.

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD Output (plaintext) RD 17 = LE 0 LD 17 = RE 0 Input (plaintext)

Round 2

K1

Round 16

F

LE 1

LD 16 = RE 0 RD 16 = LE 0

RE 0

K2

F LD 14 = RE 2 RD 14 = LE 2

LE 14

RE 14

LD 2 = RE 14 RD 2 = LE 14

RE 15 F

LE 16

RE 16

LE 17

RE 17

F

K2

K15

LD 1 = RE 15 RD 1 = LE 15 K16

Round 1

LE 15

K15

Round 2

RE 2

Round 15

LE 2

F

K1

LD 15 = RE 1 RD 15 = LE 1

RE 1 F

F

Round 15

Round 1

LE 0

Round 16

74

F

K16

LD 0 = RE 16 RD 0 = LE 16 Input (ciphertext)

Output (ciphertext)

Figure 3.3

Feistel Encryption and Decryption (16 rounds)

permutation is performed that consists of the interchange of the two halves of the data.6 This structure is a particular form of the substitution-permutation network (SPN) proposed by Shannon. 6

The final round is followed by an interchange that undoes the interchange that is part of the final round. One could simply leave both interchanges out of the diagram, at the sacrifice of some consistency of presentation. In any case, the effective lack of a swap in the final round is done to simplify the implementation of the decryption process, as we shall see.

3.1 / BLOCK CIPHER PRINCIPLES

75

The exact realization of a Feistel network depends on the choice of the following parameters and design features: • Block size: Larger block sizes mean greater security (all other things being equal) but reduced encryption/decryption speed for a given algorithm. The greater security is achieved by greater diffusion. Traditionally, a block size of 64 bits has been considered a reasonable tradeoff and was nearly universal in block cipher design. However, the new AES uses a 128-bit block size. • Key size: Larger key size means greater security but may decrease encryption/ decryption speed. The greater security is achieved by greater resistance to brute-force attacks and greater confusion. Key sizes of 64 bits or less are now widely considered to be inadequate, and 128 bits has become a common size. • Number of rounds: The essence of the Feistel cipher is that a single round offers inadequate security but that multiple rounds offer increasing security. A typical size is 16 rounds. • Subkey generation algorithm: Greater complexity in this algorithm should lead to greater difficulty of cryptanalysis. • Round function F: Again, greater complexity generally means greater resistance to cryptanalysis. There are two other considerations in the design of a Feistel cipher: • Fast software encryption/decryption: In many cases, encryption is embedded in applications or utility functions in such a way as to preclude a hardware implementation. Accordingly, the speed of execution of the algorithm becomes a concern. • Ease of analysis: Although we would like to make our algorithm as difficult as possible to cryptanalyze, there is great benefit in making the algorithm easy to analyze. That is, if the algorithm can be concisely and clearly explained, it is easier to analyze that algorithm for cryptanalytic vulnerabilities and therefore develop a higher level of assurance as to its strength. DES, for example, does not have an easily analyzed functionality. FEISTEL DECRYPTION ALGORITHM The process of decryption with a Feistel cipher is essentially the same as the encryption process. The rule is as follows: Use the ciphertext as input to the algorithm, but use the subkeys Ki in reverse order. That is, use Kn in the first round, Kn - 1 in the second round, and so on, until K1 is used in the last round. This is a nice feature, because it means we need not implement two different algorithms; one for encryption and one for decryption. To see that the same algorithm with a reversed key order produces the correct result, Figure 3.3 shows the encryption process going down the left-hand side and the decryption process going up the right-hand side for a 16-round algorithm. For clarity, we use the notation LEi and REi for data traveling through the encryption algorithm and LDi and RDi for data traveling through the decryption algorithm. The diagram indicates that, at every round, the intermediate value of the decryption process is equal to the corresponding value of the encryption process with the two halves of the value swapped. To put this another way, let the output of the ith

76

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

encryption round be LEi 7REi (LEi concatenated with REi). Then the corresponding output of the (16 – i)th decryption round is REi 7LEi or, equivalently, LD16 - i 7RD16 - i. Let us walk through Figure 3.3 to demonstrate the validity of the preceding assertions. After the last iteration of the encryption process, the two halves of the output are swapped, so that the ciphertext is RE16 7LE16 . The output of that round is the ciphertext. Now take that ciphertext and use it as input to the same algorithm. The input to the first round is RE16 7LE16 , which is equal to the 32-bit swap of the output of the sixteenth round of the encryption process. Now we would like to show that the output of the first round of the decryption process is equal to a 32-bit swap of the input to the sixteenth round of the encryption process. First, consider the encryption process. We see that LE16 = RE15 RE16 = LE15 { F(RE15, K16) On the decryption side, LD1 = RD0 = LE16 = RE15 RD1 = LD0 { F(RD0, K16) = RE16 { F(RE15, K16) = [LE15 { F(RE15, K16)] { F(RE15, K16) The XOR has the following properties: [A { B] { C = A { [B { C] D{D = 0 E{0 = E Thus, we have LD1 = RE15 and RD1 = LE15. Therefore, the output of the first round of the decryption process is RE15 7LE15, which is the 32-bit swap of the input to the sixteenth round of the encryption. This correspondence holds all the way through the 16 iterations, as is easily shown. We can cast this process in general terms. For the ith iteration of the encryption algorithm, LEi = REi - 1 REi = LEi - 1 { F(REi - 1, Ki) Rearranging terms: REi - 1 = LEi LEi - 1 = REi { F(REi - 1, Ki) = REi { F(LEi, Ki) Thus, we have described the inputs to the ith iteration as a function of the outputs, and these equations confirm the assignments shown in the right-hand side of Figure 3.3. Finally, we see that the output of the last round of the decryption process is RE0 7LE0. A 32-bit swap recovers the original plaintext, demonstrating the validity of the Feistel decryption process. Note that the derivation does not require that F be a reversible function. To see this, take a limiting case in which F produces a constant output (e.g., all ones) regardless of the values of its two arguments. The equations still hold.

3.2 / THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD Encryption round

Decryption round

F(03A6, 12DE52) [F(03A6, 12DE52) DE7F] = DE7F 03A6

03A6 F

12DE52 F

03A6

Figure 3.4

F(03A6, 12DE52)

DE7F

F(03A6, 12DE52)

DE7F

12DE52

Round 2

Round 15

DE7F

77

03A6

Feistel Example

To help clarify the preceding concepts, let us look at a specific example (Figure 3.4) and focus on the fifteenth round of encryption, corresponding to the second round of decryption. Suppose that the blocks at each stage are 32 bits (two 16-bit halves) and that the key size is 24 bits. Suppose that at the end of encryption round fourteen, the value of the intermediate block (in hexadecimal) is DE7F03A6. Then LE14 = DE7F and RE14 = 03A6. Also assume that the value of K15 is 12DE52. After round 15, we have LE15 = 03A6 and RE15 = F(03A6, 12DE52) { DE7F. Now let’s look at the decryption. We assume that LD1 = RE15 and RD1 = LE15, as shown in Figure 3.3, and we want to demonstrate that LD2 = RE14 and RD2 = LE14. So, we start with LD1 = F(03A6, 12DE52) { DE7F and RD1 = 03A6. Then, from Figure 3.3, LD2 = 03A6 = RE14 and RD2 = F(03A6, 12DE52) { [F(03A6, 12DE52) { DE7F]= DE7F = LE14.

3.2 THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD The most widely used encryption scheme is based on the Data Encryption Standard (DES) adopted in 1977 by the National Bureau of Standards, now the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), as Federal Information Processing Standard 46 (FIPS PUB 46). The algorithm itself is referred to as the Data Encryption Algorithm (DEA).7 For DES, data are encrypted in 64-bit blocks using a 56-bit key. The algorithm transforms 64-bit input in a series of steps into a 64-bit output. The same steps, with the same key, are used to reverse the encryption. The DES enjoys widespread use. It has also been the subject of much controversy concerning how secure the DES is. To appreciate the nature of the controversy, let us quickly review the history of the DES.

7 The terminology is a bit confusing. Until recently, the terms DES and DEA could be used interchangeably. However, the most recent edition of the DES document includes a specification of the DEA described here plus the triple DEA (TDEA) described in Chapter 6. Both DEA and TDEA are part of the Data Encryption Standard. Further, until the recent adoption of the official term TDEA, the triple DEA algorithm was typically referred to as triple DES and written as 3DES. For the sake of convenience, we will use the term 3DES.

78

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

In the late 1960s, IBM set up a research project in computer cryptography led by Horst Feistel. The project concluded in 1971 with the development of an algorithm with the designation LUCIFER [FEIS73], which was sold to Lloyd’s of London for use in a cash-dispensing system, also developed by IBM. LUCIFER is a Feistel block cipher that operates on blocks of 64 bits, using a key size of 128 bits. Because of the promising results produced by the LUCIFER project, IBM embarked on an effort to develop a marketable commercial encryption product that ideally could be implemented on a single chip. The effort was headed by Walter Tuchman and Carl Meyer, and it involved not only IBM researchers but also outside consultants and technical advice from the National Security Agency (NSA). The outcome of this effort was a refined version of LUCIFER that was more resistant to cryptanalysis but that had a reduced key size of 56 bits, in order to fit on a single chip. In 1973, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) issued a request for proposals for a national cipher standard. IBM submitted the results of its Tuchman–Meyer project. This was by far the best algorithm proposed and was adopted in 1977 as the Data Encryption Standard. Before its adoption as a standard, the proposed DES was subjected to intense criticism, which has not subsided to this day. Two areas drew the critics’ fire. First, the key length in IBM’s original LUCIFER algorithm was 128 bits, but that of the proposed system was only 56 bits, an enormous reduction in key size of 72 bits. Critics feared that this key length was too short to withstand brute-force attacks. The second area of concern was that the design criteria for the internal structure of DES, the S-boxes, were classified. Thus, users could not be sure that the internal structure of DES was free of any hidden weak points that would enable NSA to decipher messages without benefit of the key. Subsequent events, particularly the recent work on differential cryptanalysis, seem to indicate that DES has a very strong internal structure. Furthermore, according to IBM participants, the only changes that were made to the proposal were changes to the S-boxes, suggested by NSA, that removed vulnerabilities identified in the course of the evaluation process. Whatever the merits of the case, DES has flourished and is widely used, especially in financial applications. In 1994, NIST reaffirmed DES for federal use for another five years; NIST recommended the use of DES for applications other than the protection of classified information. In 1999, NIST issued a new version of its standard (FIPS PUB 46-3) that indicated that DES should be used only for legacy systems and that triple DES (which in essence involves repeating the DES algorithm three times on the plaintext using two or three different keys to produce the ciphertext) be used.We study triple DES in Chapter 6. Because the underlying encryption and decryption algorithms are the same for DES and triple DES, it remains important to understand the DES cipher.

DES Encryption The overall scheme for DES encryption is illustrated in Figure 3.5. As with any encryption scheme, there are two inputs to the encryption function: the plaintext to be encrypted and the key. In this case, the plaintext must be 64 bits in length and the key is 56 bits in length.8 8 Actually, the function expects a 64-bit key as input. However, only 56 of these bits are ever used; the other 8 bits can be used as parity bits or simply set arbitrarily.

3.2 / THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD 64-bit plaintext

64-bit key

•••••••••

•••••••••

Initial permutation

Permuted choice 1

64

Round 1

56

K1

48

Permuted choice 2

56

Left circular shift

64

Round 2

Round 16

79

56

K2

48

K16

48

Permuted choice 2

Permuted choice 2

56

56

Left circular shift

Left circular shift

32-bit swap 64 bits Inverse initial permutation ••••••••• 64-bit ciphertext

Figure 3.5

General Depiction of DES Encryption Algorithm

Looking at the left-hand side of the figure, we can see that the processing of the plaintext proceeds in three phases. First, the 64-bit plaintext passes through an initial permutation (IP) that rearranges the bits to produce the permuted input. This is followed by a phase consisting of sixteen rounds of the same function, which involves both permutation and substitution functions. The output of the last (sixteenth) round consists of 64 bits that are a function of the input plaintext and the key. The left and right halves of the output are swapped to produce the preoutput. Finally, the preoutput is passed through a permutation [IP -1] that is the inverse of the initial permutation function, to produce the 64-bit ciphertext. With the exception of the initial and final permutations, DES has the exact structure of a Feistel cipher, as shown in Figure 3.3. The right-hand portion of Figure 3.5 shows the way in which the 56-bit key is used. Initially, the key is passed through a permutation function. Then, for each of the sixteen rounds, a subkey ( Ki ) is produced by the combination of a left

80

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

circular shift and a permutation. The permutation function is the same for each round, but a different subkey is produced because of the repeated shifts of the key bits. INITIAL PERMUTATION The initial permutation and its inverse are defined by tables, as shown in Tables 3.2a and 3.2b, respectively. The tables are to be interpreted as follows. The input to a table consists of 64 bits numbered from 1 to 64. The 64 entries in the permutation table contain a permutation of the numbers from 1 to 64. Each Table 3.2 Permutation Tables for DES (a) Initial Permutation (IP) 58 60 62 64 57 59 61 63

50 52 54 56 49 51 53 55

42 44 46 48 41 43 45 47

34 36 38 40 33 35 37 39

26 28 30 32 25 27 29 31

18 20 22 24 17 19 21 23

10 12 14 16 9 11 13 15

2 4 6 8 1 3 5 7

64 63 62 61 60 59 58 57

32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25

(b) Inverse Initial Permutation (IP–1) 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41

16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9

56 55 54 53 52 51 50 49

24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17

(c) Expansion Permutation (E) 32 4 8 12 16 20 24 28

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29

2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30

3 7 11 15 19 23 27 31

4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

5 9 13 17 21 25 29 1

(d) Permutation Function (P) 16 1 2 19

7 15 8 13

20 23 24 30

21 26 14 6

29 5 32 22

12 18 27 11

28 31 3 4

17 10 9 25

3.2 / THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

81

entry in the permutation table indicates the position of a numbered input bit in the output, which also consists of 64 bits. To see that these two permutation functions are indeed the inverse of each other, consider the following 64-bit input M : M1 M9 M17 M25 M33 M41 M49 M57

M2 M10 M18 M26 M34 M42 M50 M58

M3 M11 M19 M27 M35 M43 M51 M59

M4 M12 M20 M28 M36 M44 M52 M60

M5 M13 M21 M29 M37 M45 M53 M61

M6 M14 M22 M30 M38 M46 M54 M62

M7 M15 M23 M31 M39 M47 M55 M63

M8 M16 M24 M32 M40 M48 M56 M64

where Mi is a binary digit. Then the permutation X = (IP(M) is as follows: M58 M60 M62 M64 M57 M59 M61 M63

M50 M52 M54 M56 M49 M51 M53 M55

M42 M44 M46 M48 M41 M43 M45 M47

M34 M36 M38 M40 M33 M35 M37 M39

M26 M28 M30 M32 M25 M27 M29 M31

M18 M20 M22 M24 M17 M19 M21 M23

M10 M12 M14 M16 M9 M11 M13 M15

M2 M4 M6 M8 M1 M3 M5 M7

If we then take the inverse permutation Y = IP-1(X) = IP-1(IP(M)), it can be seen that the original ordering of the bits is restored. DETAILS OF SINGLE ROUND Figure 3.6 shows the internal structure of a single round. Again, begin by focusing on the left-hand side of the diagram. The left and right halves of each 64-bit intermediate value are treated as separate 32-bit quantities, labeled L (left) and R (right). As in any classic Feistel cipher, the overall processing at each round can be summarized in the following formulas: Li = Ri - 1 Ri = Li - 1 { F(Ri - 1, Ki) The round key Ki is 48 bits. The R input is 32 bits. This R input is first expanded to 48 bits by using a table that defines a permutation plus an expansion that involves duplication of 16 of the R bits (Table 3.2c). The resulting 48 bits are XORed with Ki . This 48-bit result passes through a substitution function that produces a 32-bit output, which is permuted as defined by Table 3.2d. The role of the S-boxes in the function F is illustrated in Figure 3.7. The substitution consists of a set of eight S-boxes, each of which accepts 6 bits as input and produces 4 bits as output. These transformations are defined in Table 3.3, which is

82

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD 32 bits

32 bits

28 bits

28 bits

Liⴚ1

Riⴚ1

Ciⴚ1

Diⴚ1

Expansion/permutation (E table)

Left shift(s)

Left shift(s)

48

F

XOR

48

Permutation/contraction (Permuted choice 2)

Ki

48

Substitution/choice (S-box) 32

Permutation (P) 32 XOR

Ri

Li

Figure 3.6

Ci

Di

Single Round of DES Algorithm

interpreted as follows: The first and last bits of the input to box Si form a 2-bit binary number to select one of four substitutions defined by the four rows in the table for Si . The middle four bits select one of the sixteen columns. The decimal value in the cell selected by the row and column is then converted to its 4-bit representation to produce the output. For example, in S1, for input 011001, the row is 01 (row 1) and the column is 1100 (column 12). The value in row 1, column 12 is 9, so the output is 1001. Each row of an S-box defines a general reversible substitution. Figure 3.2 may be useful in understanding the mapping. The figure shows the substitution for row 0 of box S1. The operation of the S-boxes is worth further comment. Ignore for the moment the contribution of the key (Ki ). If you examine the expansion table, you see that the 32 bits of input are split into groups of 4 bits and then become groups of 6 bits by taking the outer bits from the two adjacent groups. For example, if part of the input word is ... efgh ijkl mnop ... this becomes ... defghi hijklm lmnopq ...

3.2 / THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

83

R (32 bits)

E

K (48 bits)

48 bits



S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

S8

P 32 bits

Figure 3.7

Calculation of F(R, K)

The outer two bits of each group select one of four possible substitutions (one row of an S-box). Then a 4-bit output value is substituted for the particular 4-bit input (the middle four input bits). The 32-bit output from the eight S-boxes is then permuted, so that on the next round, the output from each S-box immediately affects as many others as possible. KEY GENERATION Returning to Figures 3.5 and 3.6, we see that a 64-bit key is used as input to the algorithm. The bits of the key are numbered from 1 through 64; every eighth bit is ignored, as indicated by the lack of shading in Table 3.4a. The key is first subjected to a permutation governed by a table labeled Permuted Choice One (Table 3.4b). The resulting 56-bit key is then treated as two 28-bit quantities, labeled C0 and D0. At each round, Ci - 1 and Di - 1 are separately subjected to a circular left shift or (rotation) of 1 or 2 bits, as governed by Table 3.4d. These shifted values serve as input to the next round. They also serve as input to the part labeled Permuted Choice Two (Table 3.4c), which produces a 48-bit output that serves as input to the function F(Ri - 1, Ki).

DES Decryption As with any Feistel cipher, decryption uses the same algorithm as encryption, except that the application of the subkeys is reversed.

84

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD Table 3.3 Definition of DES S-Boxes 14

4

13

1

2

15

11

8

3

10

6

12

5

9

0

7

S1

0 4 15

15 1 12

7 14 8

4 8 2

14 13 4

2 6 9

13 2 1

1 11 7

10 15 5

6 12 11

12 9 3

11 7 14

9 3 10

5 10 0

3 5 6

8 0 13

S2

15 3 0 13

1 13 14 8

8 4 7 10

14 7 11 1

6 15 10 3

11 2 4 15

3 8 13 4

4 14 1 2

9 12 5 11

7 0 8 6

2 1 12 7

13 10 6 12

12 6 9 0

0 9 3 5

5 11 2 14

10 5 15 9

S3

10 13 13 1

0 7 6 10

9 0 4 13

14 9 9 0

6 3 8 6

3 4 15 9

15 6 3 8

5 10 0 7

1 2 11 4

13 8 1 15

12 5 2 14

7 14 12 3

11 12 5 11

4 11 10 5

2 15 14 2

8 1 7 12

S4

7 13 10 3

13 8 6 15

14 11 9 0

3 5 0 6

0 6 12 10

6 15 11 1

9 0 7 13

10 3 13 8

1 4 15 9

2 7 1 4

8 2 3 5

5 12 14 11

11 1 5 12

12 10 2 7

4 14 8 2

15 9 4 14

S5

2 14 4 11

12 11 2 8

4 2 1 12

1 12 11 7

7 4 10 1

10 7 13 14

11 13 7 2

6 1 8 13

8 5 15 6

5 0 9 15

3 15 12 0

15 10 5 9

13 3 6 10

0 9 3 4

14 8 0 5

9 6 14 3

S6

12 10 9 4

1 15 14 3

10 4 15 2

15 2 5 12

9 7 2 9

2 12 8 5

6 9 12 15

8 5 3 10

0 6 7 11

13 1 0 14

3 13 4 1

4 14 10 7

14 0 1 6

7 11 13 0

5 3 11 8

11 8 6 13

S7

4 13 1 6

11 0 4 11

2 11 11 13

14 7 13 8

15 4 12 1

0 9 3 4

8 1 7 10

13 10 14 7

3 14 10 9

12 3 15 5

9 5 6 0

7 12 8 15

5 2 0 14

10 15 5 2

6 8 9 3

1 6 2 12

13 1 7

2 15 11

8 13 4

4 8 1

6 10 9

15 3 12

11 7 14

1 4 2

10 12 0

9 5 6

3 6 10

14 11 13

5 0 15

0 14 3

12 9 5

7 2 8

2

1

14

7

4

10

8

13

15

12

9

0

3

5

6

11

S8

3.3 / A DES EXAMPLE

85

Table 3.4 DES Key Schedule Calculation (a) Input Key 1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57

2 10 18 26 34 42 50 58

3 11 19 27 35 43 51 59

4 12 20 28 36 44 52 60

5 13 21 29 37 45 53 61

6 14 22 30 38 46 54 62

7 15 23 31 39 47 55 63

8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64

(b) Permuted Choice One (PC-1) 57 1 10 19 63 7 14 21

49 58 2 11 55 62 6 13

41 50 59 3 47 54 61 5

33 42 51 60 39 46 53 28

25 34 43 52 31 38 45 20

17 26 35 44 23 30 37 12

9 18 27 36 15 22 29 4

(c) Permuted Choice Two (PC-2) 14 15 26 41 51 34

17 6 8 52 45 53

11 21 16 31 33 46

24 10 7 37 48 42

1 23 27 47 44 50

5 19 20 55 49 36

3 12 13 30 39 29

28 4 2 40 56 32

(d) Schedule of Left Shifts Round Number Bits Rotated

1 1

2 1

3 2

4 2

5 2

6 2

7 2

8 2

9 1

10 2

11 2

12 2

13 2

14 2

15 2

16 1

3.3 A DES EXAMPLE We now work through an example and consider some of its implications. Although you are not expected to duplicate the example by hand, you will find it informative to study the hex patterns that occur from one step to the next. For this example, the plaintext is a hexadecimal palindrome. The plaintext, key, and resulting ciphertext are as follows: Plaintext: Key: Ciphertext:

02468aceeca86420 0f1571c947d9e859 da02ce3a89ecac3b

86

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

Results Table 3.5 shows the progression of the algorithm. The first row shows the 32-bit values of the left and right halves of data after the initial permutation. The next 16 rows show the results after each round. Also shown is the value of the 48-bit subkey generated for each round. Note that Li = Ri - 1. The final row shows the leftand right-hand values after the inverse initial permutation. These two values combined form the ciphertext.

The Avalanche Effect A desirable property of any encryption algorithm is that a small change in either the plaintext or the key should produce a significant change in the ciphertext. In particular, a change in one bit of the plaintext or one bit of the key should produce a change in many bits of the ciphertext. This is referred to as the avalanche effect. If the change were small, this might provide a way to reduce the size of the plaintext or key space to be searched. Using the example from Table 3.5, Table 3.6 shows the result when the fourth bit of the plaintext is changed, so that the plaintext is 12468aceeca86420. The second column of the table shows the intermediate 64-bit values at the end of each round for the two plaintexts. The third column shows the number of bits that differ between the two intermediate values. The table shows that, after just three rounds, 18 bits differ between the two blocks. On completion, the two ciphertexts differ in 32 bit positions. Table 3.5 DES Example Round

Ki

IP

Li

Ri

5a005a00

3cf03c0f

1

1e030f03080d2930

3cf03c0f

bad22845

2

0a31293432242318

bad22845

99e9b723

3

23072318201d0c1d

99e9b723

0bae3b9e

4

05261d3824311a20

0bae3b9e

42415649

5

3325340136002c25

42415649

18b3fa41

6

123a2d0d04262a1c

18b3fa41

9616fe23

7

021f120b1c130611

9616fe23

67117cf2

8

1c10372a2832002b

67117cf2

c11bfc09

9

04292a380c341f03

c11bfc09

887fbc6c

10

2703212607280403

887fbc6c

600f7e8b

11

2826390c31261504

600f7e8b

f596506e

12

12071c241a0a0f08

f596506e

738538b8

13

300935393c0d100b

738538b8

c6a62c4e

14

311e09231321182a

c6a62c4e

56b0bd75

15

283d3e0227072528

56b0bd75

75e8fd8f

16

2921080b13143025

75e8fd8f

25896490

da02ce3a

89ecac3b

IP–1

Note: DES subkeys are shown as eight 6-bit values in hex format

87

3.3 / A DES EXAMPLE Table 3.6 Avalanche Effect in DES: Change in Plaintext Round

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

02468aceeca86420 12468aceeca86420 3cf03c0fbad22845 3cf03c0fbad32845 bad2284599e9b723 bad3284539a9b7a3 99e9b7230bae3b9e 39a9b7a3171cb8b3 0bae3b9e42415649 171cb8b3ccaca55e 4241564918b3fa41 ccaca55ed16c3653 18b3fa419616fe23 d16c3653cf402c68 9616fe2367117cf2 cf402c682b2cefbc 67117cf2c11bfc09 2b2cefbc99f91153

␦

Round

1

9

1

10

5

11

18

12

34

13

37

14

33

15

32

16

33

IP–1

␦ c11bfc09887fbc6c 99f911532eed7d94 887fbc6c600f7e8b 2eed7d94d0f23094 600f7e8bf596506e d0f23094455da9c4 f596506e738538b8 455da9c47f6e3cf3 738538b8c6a62c4e 7f6e3cf34bc1a8d9 c6a62c4e56b0bd75 4bc1a8d91e07d409 56b0bd7575e8fd8f 1e07d4091ce2e6dc 75e8fd8f25896490 1ce2e6dc365e5f59 da02ce3a89ecac3b 057cde97d7683f2a

32 34 37 31 29 33 31 32 32

Table 3.7 shows a similar test using the original plaintext of with two keys that differ in only the fourth bit position: the original key, 0f1571c947d9e859, and the altered key, 1f1571c947d9e859. Again, the results show that about half of the bits in the ciphertext differ and that the avalanche effect is pronounced after just a few rounds. Table 3.7 Avalanche Effect in DES: Change in Key Round

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

02468aceeca86420 02468aceeca86420 3cf03c0fbad22845 3cf03c0f9ad628c5 bad2284599e9b723 9ad628c59939136b 99e9b7230bae3b9e 9939136b768067b7 0bae3b9e42415649 768067b75a8807c5 4241564918b3fa41 5a8807c5488dbe94 18b3fa419616fe23 488dbe94aba7fe53 9616fe2367117cf2 aba7fe53177d21e4 67117cf2c11bfc09 177d21e4548f1de4

␦

Round

0

9

3

10

11

11

25

12

29

13

26

14

26

15

27

16

32

IP–1

␦ c11bfc09887fbc6c 548f1de471f64dfd 887fbc6c600f7e8b 71f64dfd4279876c 600f7e8bf596506e 4279876c399fdc0d f596506e738538b8 399fdc0d6d208dbb 738538b8c6a62c4e 6d208dbbb9bdeeaa c6a62c4e56b0bd75 b9bdeeaad2c3a56f 56b0bd7575e8fd8f d2c3a56f2765c1fb 75e8fd8f25896490 2765c1fb01263dc4 da02ce3a89ecac3b ee92b50606b62b0b

34 36 32 28 33 30 33 30 30

88

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

3.4 THE STRENGTH OF DES Since its adoption as a federal standard, there have been lingering concerns about the level of security provided by DES. These concerns, by and large, fall into two areas: key size and the nature of the algorithm.

The Use of 56-Bit Keys With a key length of 56 bits, there are 256 possible keys, which is approximately 7.2 * 1016 keys. Thus, on the face of it, a brute-force attack appears impractical. Assuming that, on average, half the key space has to be searched, a single machine performing one DES encryption per microsecond would take more than a thousand years (see Table 2.2) to break the cipher. However, the assumption of one encryption per microsecond is overly conservative. As far back as 1977, Diffie and Hellman postulated that the technology existed to build a parallel machine with 1 million encryption devices, each of which could perform one encryption per microsecond [DIFF77]. This would bring the average search time down to about 10 hours. The authors estimated that the cost would be about $20 million in 1977 dollars. DES finally and definitively proved insecure in July 1998, when the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) announced that it had broken a DES encryption using a special-purpose “DES cracker” machine that was built for less than $250,000. The attack took less than three days. The EFF has published a detailed description of the machine, enabling others to build their own cracker [EFF98]. And, of course, hardware prices will continue to drop as speeds increase, making DES virtually worthless. It is important to note that there is more to a key-search attack than simply running through all possible keys. Unless known plaintext is provided, the analyst must be able to recognize plaintext as plaintext. If the message is just plain text in English, then the result pops out easily, although the task of recognizing English would have to be automated. If the text message has been compressed before encryption, then recognition is more difficult. And if the message is some more general type of data, such as a numerical file, and this has been compressed, the problem becomes even more difficult to automate. Thus, to supplement the brute-force approach, some degree of knowledge about the expected plaintext is needed, and some means of automatically distinguishing plaintext from garble is also needed. The EFF approach addresses this issue as well and introduces some automated techniques that would be effective in many contexts. Fortunately, there are a number of alternatives to DES, the most important of which are AES and triple DES, discussed in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively.

The Nature of the DES Algorithm Another concern is the possibility that cryptanalysis is possible by exploiting the characteristics of the DES algorithm. The focus of concern has been on the eight substitution tables, or S-boxes, that are used in each iteration. Because the design criteria for these boxes, and indeed for the entire algorithm, were not made public, there is a suspicion that the boxes were constructed in such a way that cryptanalysis

3.5 / DIFFERENTIAL AND LINEAR CRYPTANALYSIS

89

is possible for an opponent who knows the weaknesses in the S-boxes. This assertion is tantalizing, and over the years a number of regularities and unexpected behaviors of the S-boxes have been discovered. Despite this, no one has so far succeeded in discovering the supposed fatal weaknesses in the S-boxes.9

Timing Attacks We discuss timing attacks in more detail in Part Two, as they relate to public-key algorithms. However, the issue may also be relevant for symmetric ciphers. In essence, a timing attack is one in which information about the key or the plaintext is obtained by observing how long it takes a given implementation to perform decryptions on various ciphertexts. A timing attack exploits the fact that an encryption or decryption algorithm often takes slightly different amounts of time on different inputs. [HEVI99] reports on an approach that yields the Hamming weight (number of bits equal to one) of the secret key. This is a long way from knowing the actual key, but it is an intriguing first step. The authors conclude that DES appears to be fairly resistant to a successful timing attack but suggest some avenues to explore. Although this is an interesting line of attack, it so far appears unlikely that this technique will ever be successful against DES or more powerful symmetric ciphers such as triple DES and AES.

3.5 DIFFERENTIAL AND LINEAR CRYPTANALYSIS For most of its life, the prime concern with DES has been its vulnerability to brute-force attack because of its relatively short (56 bits) key length. However, there has also been interest in finding cryptanalytic attacks on DES. With the increasing popularity of block ciphers with longer key lengths, including triple DES, brute-force attacks have become increasingly impractical. Thus, there has been increased emphasis on cryptanalytic attacks on DES and other symmetric block ciphers. In this section, we provide a brief overview of the two most powerful and promising approaches: differential cryptanalysis and linear cryptanalysis.

Differential Cryptanalysis One of the most significant advances in cryptanalysis in recent years is differential cryptanalysis. In this section, we discuss the technique and its applicability to DES. HISTORY Differential cryptanalysis was not reported in the open literature until 1990. The first published effort appears to have been the cryptanalysis of a block cipher called FEAL by Murphy [MURP90]. This was followed by a number of papers by Biham and Shamir, who demonstrated this form of attack on a variety of encryption algorithms and hash functions; their results are summarized in [BIHA93]. 9

At least, no one has publicly acknowledged such a discovery.

90

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

The most publicized results for this approach have been those that have application to DES. Differential cryptanalysis is the first published attack that is capable of breaking DES in less than 255 encryptions. The scheme, as reported in [BIHA93], can successfully cryptanalyze DES with an effort on the order of 247 encryptions, requiring 247 chosen plaintexts. Although 247 is certainly significantly less than 255, the need for the adversary to find 247 chosen plaintexts makes this attack of only theoretical interest. Although differential cryptanalysis is a powerful tool, it does not do very well against DES. The reason, according to a member of the IBM team that designed DES [COPP94], is that differential cryptanalysis was known to the team as early as 1974. The need to strengthen DES against attacks using differential cryptanalysis played a large part in the design of the S-boxes and the permutation P. As evidence of the impact of these changes, consider these comparable results reported in [BIHA93]. Differential cryptanalysis of an eight-round LUCIFER algorithm requires only 256 chosen plaintexts, whereas an attack on an eight-round version of DES requires 214 chosen plaintexts. DIFFERENTIAL CRYPTANALYSIS ATTACK The differential cryptanalysis attack is complex; [BIHA93] provides a complete description. The rationale behind differential cryptanalysis is to observe the behavior of pairs of text blocks evolving along each round of the cipher, instead of observing the evolution of a single text block. Here, we provide a brief overview so that you can get the flavor of the attack. We begin with a change in notation for DES. Consider the original plaintext block m to consist of two halves m0, m1. Each round of DES maps the right-hand input into the left-hand output and sets the right-hand output to be a function of the left-hand input and the subkey for this round. So, at each round, only one new 32-bit block is created. If we label each new block mi (2 … i … 17), then the intermediate message halves are related as follows: mi + 1 = mi - 1 { f(mi, Ki),

i = 1, 2, Á , 16

In differential cryptanalysis, we start with two messages, m and m¿ , with a known XOR difference ¢m = m { m¿ , and consider the difference between the intermediate message halves: ¢mi = mi { m¿i. Then we have ¢mi + 1 = mi + 1 { m¿ i + 1 = [mi - 1 { f(mi, Ki)] { [m¿i - 1 { f(m¿ i, Ki)] = ¢mi - 1 { [f(mi, Ki) { f(m¿i, Ki)] Now, suppose that many pairs of inputs to f with the same difference yield the same output difference if the same subkey is used. To put this more precisely, let us say that X may cause Y with probability p, if for a fraction p of the pairs in which the input XOR is X, the output XOR equals Y. We want to suppose that there are a number of values of X that have high probability of causing a particular output difference. Therefore, if we know ¢mi - 1 and ¢mi with high probability, then we know ¢mi + 1 with high probability. Furthermore, if a number of such differences are determined, it is feasible to determine the subkey used in the function f. The overall strategy of differential cryptanalysis is based on these considerations for a single round. The procedure is to begin with two plaintext messages m and m¿

3.5 / DIFFERENTIAL AND LINEAR CRYPTANALYSIS

91

with a given difference and trace through a probable pattern of differences after each round to yield a probable difference for the ciphertext. Actually, there are two probable patterns of differences for the two 32-bit halves: (¢m17 7 ¢m16). Next, we submit m and m¿ for encryption to determine the actual difference under the unknown key and compare the result to the probable difference. If there is a match, E(K, m) { E(K, m¿) = (¢m17 7 ¢m16)

then we suspect that all the probable patterns at all the intermediate rounds are correct. With that assumption, we can make some deductions about the key bits. This procedure must be repeated many times to determine all the key bits. Figure 3.8, based on a figure in [BIHA93], illustrates the propagation of differences through three rounds of DES. The probabilities shown on the right refer to the probability that a given set of intermediate differences will appear as a function

mi1 || mi  40 08 00 00 04 00 00 00

f(mi)  40 08 00 00

f(mi1)  00 00 00 00

f(mi2)  40 08 00 00

f

f

f

mi  04 00 00 00

mi1  00 00 00 00

mi2  04 00 00 00

p  0.25

p  1.0

p  0.25

mi3 || mi2  40 08 00 00 04 00 00 00

Figure 3.8 Differential Propagation through Three Rounds of DES (numbers in hexadecimal)

92

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

of the input differences. Overall, after three rounds, the probability that the output difference is as shown is equal to 0.25 * 1 * 0.25 = 0.0625.

Linear Cryptanalysis A more recent development is linear cryptanalysis, described in [MATS93].This attack is based on finding linear approximations to describe the transformations performed in DES. This method can find a DES key given 243 known plaintexts, as compared to 247 chosen plaintexts for differential cryptanalysis. Although this is a minor improvement, because it may be easier to acquire known plaintext rather than chosen plaintext, it still leaves linear cryptanalysis infeasible as an attack on DES. So far, little work has been done by other groups to validate the linear cryptanalytic approach. We now give a brief summary of the principle on which linear cryptanalysis is based. For a cipher with n-bit plaintext and ciphertext blocks and an m-bit key, let the plaintext block be labeled P[1], Á P[n], the cipher text block C[1], Á C[n], and the key K[1], Á , K[m]. Then define A[i, j, Á , k] = A[i] { A[ j] { Á { A[k] The objective of linear cryptanalysis is to find an effective linear equation of the form: P[a1, a2, Á , a a] { C[b 1, b 2, Á , b b] = K[g1, g2 , Á , gc] (where x = 0 or 1; 1 … a; b … n; c … m; and where the a, b, and g terms represent fixed, unique bit locations) that holds with probability p Z 0.5. The further p is from 0.5, the more effective the equation. Once a proposed relation is determined, the procedure is to compute the results of the left-hand side of the preceding equation for a large number of plaintext–ciphertext pairs. If the result is 0 more than half the time, assume K[g1, g2, Á , gc] = 0. If it is 1 most of the time, assume K[g1, g2, Á , gc] = 1. This gives us a linear equation on the key bits.Try to get more such relations so that we can solve for the key bits. Because we are dealing with linear equations, the problem can be approached one round of the cipher at a time, with the results combined.

3.6 BLOCK CIPHER DESIGN PRINCIPLES Although much progress has been made in designing block ciphers that are cryptographically strong, the basic principles have not changed all that much since the work of Feistel and the DES design team in the early 1970s. It is useful to begin this discussion by looking at the published design criteria used in the DES effort. Then we look at three critical aspects of block cipher design: the number of rounds, design of the function F, and key scheduling.

DES Design Criteria The criteria used in the design of DES, as reported in [COPP94], focused on the design of the S-boxes and on the P function that takes the output of the S-boxes (Figure 3.7). The criteria for the S-boxes are as follows.

3.6 / BLOCK CIPHER DESIGN PRINCIPLES

93

1. No output bit of any S-box should be too close a linear function of the input bits. Specifically, if we select any output bit and any subset of the six input bits, the fraction of inputs for which this output bit equals the XOR of these input bits should not be close to 0 or 1, but rather should be near 1/2. 2. Each row of an S-box (determined by a fixed value of the leftmost and rightmost input bits) should include all 16 possible output bit combinations. 3. If two inputs to an S-box differ in exactly one bit, the outputs must differ in at least two bits. 4. If two inputs to an S-box differ in the two middle bits exactly, the outputs must differ in at least two bits. 5. If two inputs to an S-box differ in their first two bits and are identical in their last two bits, the two outputs must not be the same. 6. For any nonzero 6-bit difference between inputs, no more than eight of the 32 pairs of inputs exhibiting that difference may result in the same output difference. 7. This is a criterion similar to the previous one, but for the case of three S-boxes. Coppersmith pointed out that the first criterion in the preceding list was needed because the S-boxes are the only nonlinear part of DES. If the S-boxes were linear (i.e., each output bit is a linear combination of the input bits), the entire algorithm would be linear and easily broken. We have seen this phenomenon with the Hill cipher, which is linear. The remaining criteria were primarily aimed at thwarting differential cryptanalysis and at providing good confusion properties. The criteria for the permutation P are as follows. 1. The four output bits from each S-box at round i are distributed so that two of them affect (provide input for) “middle bits” of round (i + 1) and the other two affect end bits. The two middle bits of input to an S-box are not shared with adjacent S-boxes. The end bits are the two left-hand bits and the two right-hand bits, which are shared with adjacent S-boxes. 2. The four output bits from each S-box affect six different S-boxes on the next round, and no two affect the same S-box. 3. For two S-boxes j, k, if an output bit from Sj affects a middle bit of Sk on the next round, then an output bit from Sk cannot affect a middle bit of Sj. This implies that, for j = k, an output bit from Sj must not affect a middle bit of Sj. These criteria are intended to increase the diffusion of the algorithm.

Number of Rounds The cryptographic strength of a Feistel cipher derives from three aspects of the design: the number of rounds, the function F, and the key schedule algorithm. Let us look first at the choice of the number of rounds.

94

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

The greater the number of rounds, the more difficult it is to perform cryptanalysis, even for a relatively weak F. In general, the criterion should be that the number of rounds is chosen so that known cryptanalytic efforts require greater effort than a simple brute-force key search attack. This criterion was certainly used in the design of DES. Schneier [SCHN96] observes that for 16-round DES, a differential cryptanalysis attack is slightly less efficient than brute force: The differential cryptanalysis attack requires 255.1 operations,10 whereas brute force requires 255. If DES had 15 or fewer rounds, differential cryptanalysis would require less effort than a brute-force key search. This criterion is attractive, because it makes it easy to judge the strength of an algorithm and to compare different algorithms. In the absence of a cryptanalytic breakthrough, the strength of any algorithm that satisfies the criterion can be judged solely on key length.

Design of Function F The heart of a Feistel block cipher is the function F. As we have seen, in DES, this function relies on the use of S-boxes. This is also the case for many other symmetric block ciphers. However, we can make some general comments about the criteria for designing F. After that, we look specifically at S-box design. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR F The function F provides the element of confusion in a Feistel cipher. Thus, it must be difficult to “unscramble” the substitution performed by F. One obvious criterion is that F be nonlinear, as we discussed previously. The more nonlinear F, the more difficult any type of cryptanalysis will be. There are several measures of nonlinearity, which are beyond the scope of this book. In rough terms, the more difficult it is to approximate F by a set of linear equations, the more nonlinear F is. Several other criteria should be considered in designing F. We would like the algorithm to have good avalanche properties. Recall that, in general, this means that a change in one bit of the input should produce a change in many bits of the output. A more stringent version of this is the strict avalanche criterion (SAC) [WEBS86], which states that any output bit j of an S-box should change with probability 1/2 when any single input bit i is inverted for all i , j . Although SAC is expressed in terms of S-boxes, a similar criterion could be applied to F as a whole. This is important when considering designs that do not include S-boxes. Another criterion proposed in [WEBS86] is the bit independence criterion (BIC), which states that output bits j and k should change independently when any single input bit i is inverted for all i, j, and k. The SAC and BIC criteria appear to strengthen the effectiveness of the confusion function. S-BOX DESIGN One of the most intense areas of research in the field of symmetric block ciphers is that of S-box design. The papers are almost too numerous to

10

Recall that differential cryptanalysis of DES requires 247 chosen plaintext. If all you have to work with is known plaintext, then you must sort through a large quantity of known plaintext–ciphertext pairs looking for the useful ones. This brings the level of effort up to 255.1.

3.6 / BLOCK CIPHER DESIGN PRINCIPLES

95

count.11 Here we mention some general principles. In essence, we would like any change to the input vector to an S-box to result in random-looking changes to the output. The relationship should be nonlinear and difficult to approximate with linear functions. One obvious characteristic of the S-box is its size. An n * m S-box has n input bits and m output bits. DES has 6  4 S-boxes. The encryption algorithm Blowfish, has 8  32 S-boxes. Larger S-boxes, by and large, are more resistant to differential and linear cryptanalysis [SCHN96]. On the other hand, the larger the dimension n, the (exponentially) larger the lookup table. Thus, for practical reasons, a limit of n equal to about 8 to 10 is usually imposed. Another practical consideration is that the larger the S-box, the more difficult it is to design it properly. S-boxes are typically organized in a different manner than used in DES. An n * m S-box typically consists of 2n rows of m bits each. The n bits of input select one of the rows of the S-box, and the m bits in that row are the output. For example, in an 8 * 32 S-box, if the input is 00001001, the output consists of the 32 bits in row 9 (the first row is labeled row 0). Mister and Adams [MIST96] propose a number of criteria for S-box design. Among these are that the S-box should satisfy both SAC and BIC. They also suggest that all linear combinations of S-box columns should be bent. Bent functions are a special class of Boolean functions that are highly nonlinear according to certain mathematical criteria [ADAM90]. There has been increasing interest in designing and analyzing S-boxes using bent functions. A related criterion for S-boxes is proposed and analyzed in [HEYS95]. The authors define the guaranteed avalanche (GA) criterion as follows: An S-box satisfies GA of order g if, for a 1-bit input change, at least g output bits change. The authors conclude that a GA in the range of order 2 to order 5 provides strong diffusion characteristics for the overall encryption algorithm. For larger S-boxes, such as 8 * 32, the question arises as to the best method of selecting the S-box entries in order to meet the type of criteria we have been discussing. Nyberg, who has written a lot about the theory and practice of S-box design, suggests the following approaches (quoted in [ROBS95b]): • Random: Use some pseudorandom number generation or some table of random digits to generate the entries in the S-boxes. This may lead to boxes with undesirable characteristics for small sizes (e.g., 6 * 4) but should be acceptable for large S-boxes (e.g., 8 * 32). • Random with testing: Choose S-box entries randomly, then test the results against various criteria, and throw away those that do not pass. • Human-made: This is a more or less manual approach with only simple mathematics to support it. It is apparently the technique used in the DES design. This approach is difficult to carry through for large S-boxes. • Math-made: Generate S-boxes according to mathematical principles. By using mathematical construction, S-boxes can be constructed that offer proven security against linear and differential cryptanalysis, together with good diffusion. 11

A good summary of S-box design studies through early 1996 can be found in [SCHN96].

96

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

A variation on the first technique is to use S-boxes that are both random and key dependent. An example of this approach is Blowfish, which starts with S-boxes filled with pseudorandom digits and then alters the contents using the key. A tremendous advantage of key-dependent S-boxes is that, because they are not fixed, it is impossible to analyze the S-boxes ahead of time to look for weaknesses.

Key Schedule Algorithm A final area of block cipher design, and one that has received less attention than S-box design, is the key schedule algorithm. With any Feistel block cipher, the key is used to generate one subkey for each round. In general, we would like to select subkeys to maximize the difficulty of deducing individual subkeys and the difficulty of working back to the main key. No general principles for this have yet been promulgated. Hall suggests [ADAM94] that, at minimum, the key schedule should guarantee key/ciphertext Strict Avalanche Criterion and Bit Independence Criterion.

3.7 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITE There is a wealth of information on symmetric encryption. Some of the more worthwhile references are listed here. An essential reference work is [SCHN96]. This remarkable work contains descriptions of virtually every cryptographic algorithm and protocol published up to the time of the writing of the book. The author pulls together results from journals, conference proceedings, government publications, and standards documents and organizes these into a comprehensive and comprehensible survey. Another worthwhile and detailed survey is [MENE97]. A rigorous mathematical treatment is [STIN06]. The foregoing references provide coverage of public-key as well as symmetric encryption. Perhaps the most detailed description of DES is [SIMO95]; the book also contains an extensive discussion of differential and linear cryptanalysis of DES. [BARK91] provides a readable and interesting analysis of the structure of DES and of potential cryptanalytic approaches to DES. [EFF98] details the most effective brute-force attack on DES. [COPP94] looks at the inherent strength of DES and its ability to stand up to cryptanalysis. The reader may also find the following document useful: “The DES Algorithm Illustrated” by J. Orlin Grabbe, which is available at this book’s Web site. An excellent description of linear and differential cryptanalysis is in [HEYS02].

BARK91 Barker, W. Introduction to the Analysis of the Data Encryption Standard (DES). Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1991. COPP94 Coppersmith, D. “The Data Encryption Standard (DES) and Its Strength Against Attacks.” IBM Journal of Research and Development, May 1994. EFF98 Electronic Frontier Foundation. Cracking DES: Secrets of Encryption Research, Wiretap Politics, and Chip Design. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 1998. HEYS02 Heys, H. “A Tutorial on Linear and Differential Cryptanalysis.” Cryptologia, July 2002. MENE97 Menezes, A.; van Oorschot, P.; and Vanstone, S. Handbook of Applied Cryptography. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1997.

3.8 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

97

SCHN96 Schneier, B. Applied Cryptography. New York: Wiley, 1996. SIMO95 Simovits, M. The DES: An Extensive Documentation and Evaluation. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1995. STIN06 Stinson, D. Cryptography: Theory and Practice. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall, 2006.

Recommended Web Site: • Block Cipher Hospital: Contains links to papers and theses on block cipher cryptanalysis.

3.8 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms avalanche effect block cipher confusion Data Encryption Standard (DES) differential cryptanalysis

diffusion Feistel cipher irreversible mapping key linear cryptanalysis permutation

product cipher reversible mapping round round function subkey substitution

Review Questions 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9

Why is it important to study the Feistel cipher? What is the difference between a block cipher and a stream cipher? Why is it not practical to use an arbitrary reversible substitution cipher of the kind shown in Table 3.1? What is a product cipher? What is the difference between diffusion and confusion? Which parameters and design choices determine the actual algorithm of a Feistel cipher? What is the purpose of the S-boxes in DES? Explain the avalanche effect. What is the difference between differential and linear cryptanalysis?

Problems 3.1

a. In Section 3.1, under the subsection on the motivation for the Feistel cipher structure, it was stated that, for a block of n bits, the number of different reversible mappings for the ideal block cipher is 2n!. Justify. b. In that same discussion, it was stated that for the ideal block cipher, which allows all possible reversible mappings, the size of the key is n * 2n bits. But, if there are 2n!

98

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

3.2

possible mappings, it should take log2 2n! bits to discriminate among the different mappings, and so the key length should be log2 2n!. However, log2 2n! 6 n * 2n. Explain the discrepancy. Consider a Feistel cipher composed of sixteen rounds with a block length of 128 bits and a key length of 128 bits. Suppose that, for a given k, the key scheduling algorithm determines values for the first eight round keys, k1, k2, Á k8, and then sets k9 = k8, k10 = k7, k11 = k6, Á , k16 = k1

3.3

3.4

3.5 3.6

3.7

Suppose you have a ciphertext c. Explain how, with access to an encryption oracle, you can decrypt c and determine m using just a single oracle query. This shows that such a cipher is vulnerable to a chosen plaintext attack. (An encryption oracle can be thought of as a device that, when given a plaintext, returns the corresponding ciphertext. The internal details of the device are not known to you and you cannot break open the device. You can only gain information from the oracle by making queries to it and observing its responses.) Consider a block encryption algorithm that encrypts blocks of length n, and let N = 2n. Say we have t plaintext–ciphertext pairs Pi, Ci = E(K, Pi), where we assume that the key K selects one of the N! possible mappings. Imagine that we wish to find K by exhaustive search. We could generate key K¿ and test whether Ci = E(K¿, Pi) for 1 … i … t. If K¿ encrypts each Pi to its proper Ci, then we have evidence that K = K¿ . However, it may be the case that the mappings E(K, # ) and E(K¿, # ) exactly agree on the t plaintext– cipher text pairs Pi, Ci and agree on no other pairs. a. What is the probability that E(K, # ) and E(K¿, # ) are in fact distinct mappings? b. What is the probability that E(K, # ) and E(K¿, # ) agree on another t¿ plaintext– ciphertext pairs where 0 … t¿ … N - t? Let p be a permutation of the integers 0, 1, 2, Á , (2n - 1), such that p(m) gives the permuted value of m, 0 … m 6 2n. Put another way, p maps the set of n-bit integers into itself and no two integers map into the same integer. DES is such a permutation for 64-bit integers. We say that p has a fixed point at m if p(m) = m. That is, if p is an encryption mapping, then a fixed point corresponds to a message that encrypts to itself. We are interested in the probability that p has no fixed points. Show the somewhat unexpected result that over 60% of mappings will have at least one fixed point. Consider the substitution defined by row 1 of S-box S1 in Table 3.3. Show a block diagram similar to Figure 3.2 that corresponds to this substitution. Compute the bits number 1, 16, 33, and 48 at the output of the first round of the DES decryption, assuming that the ciphertext block is composed of all ones and the external key is composed of all ones. Suppose the DES F function mapped every 32-bit input R, regardless of the value of the input K, to a. 32-bit string of ones b. bitwise complement of R Hint: Use the following properties of the XOR operation: 1. What function would DES then compute? 2. What would the decryption look like? (A { B) { C = A { (B { C) A{A = 0 A{0 = A A { 1 = bitwise complement of A where A,B,C are n-bit strings of bits 0 is an n-bit string of zeros 1 is an n-bit string of one

3.8 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS 3.8

99

This problem provides a numerical example of encryption using a one-round version of DES. We start with the same bit pattern for the key K and the plaintext, namely: Hexadecimal notation: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F Binary notation: 0000 0001 0010 0011 0100 0101 0110 0111 1000 1001 1010 1011 1100 1101 1110 1111 Derive K1, the first-round subkey. Derive L0, R0. Expand R0 to get E[R0], where E[ # ] is the expansion function of Table 3.2. Calculate A = E[R0] { K1. Group the 48-bit result of (d) into sets of 6 bits and evaluate the corresponding S-box substitutions. f. Concatenate the results of (e) to get a 32-bit result, B. g. Apply the permutation to get P(B). h. Calculate R1 = P(B) { L0. i. Write down the ciphertext. Show that DES decryption is, in fact, the inverse of DES encryption. The 32-bit swap after the sixteenth iteration of the DES algorithm is needed to make the encryption process invertible by simply running the ciphertext back through the algorithm with the key order reversed. This was demonstrated in Problem 3.7. However, it still may not be entirely clear why the 32-bit swap is needed. To demonstrate why, solve the following exercises. First, some notation: a. b. c. d. e.

3.9 3.10

A7B

= the concatenation of the bit strings A and B

Ti(R7 L)

= the transformation defined by the ith iteration of the encryption algorithm for 1 … I … 16

TDi(R 7 L) = the transformation defined by the ith iteration of the encryption algorithm for 1 … I … 16

T17(R 7 L) = L7 R, where this transformation occurs after the sixteenth iteration of the encryption algorithm a. Show that the composition TD1(IP(IP - 1(T17(T16(L15 7R15))))) is equivalent to the transformation that interchanges the 32-bit halves, L15 and R15. That is, show that TD1(IP(IP-1(T17(T16(L15 7R15))))) = R15 7L15 b. Now suppose that we did away with the final 32-bit swap in the encryption algorithm. Then we would want the following equality to hold: TD1(IP(IP-1(T16(L15 7R15)))) = L15 7R15 3.11

3.12

3.13

Does it? Compare the initial permutation table (Table 3.2a) with the permuted choice one table (Table 3.4b). Are the structures similar? If so, describe the similarities. What conclusions can you draw from this analysis? When using the DES algorithm for decryption, the 16 keys (K1, K2, Á , K16) are used in reverse order. Therefore, the right-hand side of Figure 3.5 is not valid for decryption. Design a key-generation scheme with the appropriate shift schedule (analogous to Table 3.4d) for the decryption process. a. Let X¿ be the bitwise complement of X. Prove that if the complement of the plaintext block is taken and the complement of an encryption key is taken, then the result of DES encryption with these values is the complement of the original ciphertext. That is,

100

CHAPTER 3 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD If Y = E(K, X) Then Y¿ = E(K¿, X¿)

3.14

3.15

Hint: Begin by showing that for any two bit strings of equal length, A and B , (A { B)¿ = A¿ { B. b. It has been said that a brute-force attack on DES requires searching a key space of 256 keys. Does the result of part (a) change that? Show that in DES the first 24 bits of each subkey come from the same subset of 28 bits of the initial key and that the second 24 bits of each subkey come from a disjoint subset of 28 bits of the initial key. For any block cipher, the fact that it is a nonlinear function is crucial to its security. To see this, suppose that we have a linear block cipher EL that encrypts 128-bit blocks of plaintext into 128-bit blocks of ciphertext. Let EL (k, m) denote the encryption of a 128-bit message m under a key k (the actual bit length of k is irrelevant). Thus, EL(k, [m1 { m2]) = EL(k, m1) { EL(k, m2) for all 128-bit patterns m1, m2 Describe how, with 128 chosen ciphertexts, an adversary can decrypt any ciphertext without knowledge of the secret key k. (A “chosen ciphertext” means that an adversary has the ability to choose a ciphertext and then obtain its decryption. Here, you have 128 plaintext/ciphertext pairs to work with and you have the ability to chose the value of the ciphertexts.)

Note: The following problems refer to simplified DES, described in Appendix G. 3.16 Refer to Figure G.2, which depicts key generation for S-DES. a. How important is the initial P10 permutation function? b. How important are the two LS-1 shift functions? 3.17 The equations for the variables q and r for S-DES are defined in the section on S-DES analysis. Provide the equations for s and t. 3.18 Using S-DES, decrypt the string (10100010) using the key (0111111101) by hand. Show intermediate results after each function (IP, FK, SW, FK, IP-1). Then decode the first 4 bits of the plaintext string to a letter and the second 4 bits to another letter where we encode A through P in base 2 (i.e., A = 0000, B = 0001, ..., P = 1111). Hint: As a midway check, after the application of SW, the string should be (00010011).

Programming Problems 3.19 3.20

Create software that can encrypt and decrypt using a general substitution block cipher. Create software that can encrypt and decrypt using S-DES. Test data: use plaintext, ciphertext, and key of Problem 3.18.

CHAPTER

BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS 4.1

Divisibility and The Division Algorithm

4.2

The Euclidean Algorithm

4.3

Modular Arithmetic

4.4

Groups, Rings, and Fields

4.5

Finite Fields of the Form GF(p)

4.6

Polynomial Arithmetic

4.7

Finite Fields of the Form GF(2 n)

4.8

Recommended Reading and Web Site

4.9

Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

Appendix 4A The Meaning of Mod

101

102

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

The next morning at daybreak, Star flew indoors, seemingly keen for a lesson. I said, “Tap eight.” She did a brilliant exhibition, first tapping it in 4, 4, then giving me a hasty glance and doing it in 2, 2, 2, 2, before coming for her nut. It is astonishing that Star learned to count up to 8 with no difficulty, and of her own accord discovered that each number could be given with various different divisions, this leaving no doubt that she was consciously thinking each number. In fact, she did mental arithmetic, although unable, like humans, to name the numbers. But she learned to recognize their spoken names almost immediately and was able to remember the sounds of the names. Star is unique as a wild bird, who of her own free will pursued the science of numbers with keen interest and astonishing intelligence. —Living with Birds, Len Howard

KEY POINTS ◆

◆ ◆

◆

◆ ◆

Modular arithmetic is a kind of integer arithmetic that reduces all numbers to one of a fixed set [0, . . . , n - 1] for some number n. Any integer outside this range is reduced to one in this range by taking the remainder after division by n. The greatest common divisor of two integers is the largest positive integer that exactly divides both integers. A field is a set of elements on which two arithmetic operations (addition and multiplication) have been defined and which has the properties of ordinary arithmetic, such as closure, associativity, commutativity, distributivity, and having both additive and multiplicative inverses. Finite fields are important in several areas of cryptography. A finite field is simply a field with a finite number of elements. It can be shown that the order of a finite field (number of elements in the field) must be a power of a prime pn, where n is a positive integer. Finite fields of order p can be defined using arithmetic mod p. Finite fields of order pn, for n > 1, can be defined using arithmetic over polynomials.

Finite fields have become increasingly important in cryptography.A number of cryptographic algorithms rely heavily on properties of finite fields, notably the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) and elliptic curve cryptography. Other examples include the message authentication code CMAC and the authenticated encryption scheme GMC. This chapter provides the reader with sufficient background on the concepts of finite fields to be able to understand the design of AES and other cryptographic algorithms that use finite fields. The first three sections introduce basic concepts

4.1 / DIVISIBILITY AND THE DIVISION ALGORITHM

103

from number theory that are needed in the remainder of the chapter; these include divisibility, the Euclidian algorithm, and modular arithmetic. Next comes a brief overview of the concepts of group, ring, and field. This section is somewhat abstract; the reader may prefer to quickly skim this section on a first reading. We are then ready to discuss finite fields of the form GF(p), where p is a prime number. Next, we need some additional background, this time in polynomial arithmetic. The chapter concludes with a discussion of finite fields of the form GF(2 n), where n is a positive integer. The concepts and techniques of number theory are quite abstract, and it is often difficult to grasp them intuitively without examples. Accordingly, this chapter and Chapter 8 include a number of examples, each of which is highlighted in a shaded box.

4.1 DIVISIBILITY AND THE DIVISION ALGORITHM Divisibility We say that a nonzero b divides a if a = mb for some m, where a, b, and m are integers. That is, b divides a if there is no remainder on division. The notation b ƒ a is commonly used to mean b divides a. Also, if b ƒ a, we say that b is a divisor of a. The positive divisors of 24 are 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24. 13 ƒ 182; -5 ƒ 30; 17 ƒ 289; -3 ƒ 33; 17 ƒ 0 Subsequently, we will need some simple properties of divisibility for integers, which are as follows: • • • •

If a ƒ 1, then a = ;1. If a ƒ b and b ƒ a, then a = ;b. Any b Z 0 divides 0. If a ƒ b and b ƒ c, then a ƒ c: 11 ƒ 66 and 66 ƒ 198 = 11 ƒ 198

• If b ƒ g and b ƒ h, then b ƒ (mg + nh) for arbitrary integers m and n. To see this last point, note that • If b ƒ g, then g is of the form g = b * g1 for some integer g1. • If b ƒ h, then h is of the form h = b * h1 for some integer h1. So mg + nh = mbg1 + nbh1 = b * (mg1 + nh1)

104

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

and therefore b divides mg + nh. b = 7; g = 14; h = 63; m = 3; n = 2 7 ƒ 14 and 7 ƒ 63. To show 7 ƒ (3 * 14 + 2 * 63), we have (3 * 14 + 2 * 63) = 7(3 * 2 + 2 * 9), and it is obvious that 7 ƒ (7(3 * 2 + 2 * 9)).

The Division Algorithm Given any positive integer n and any nonnegative integer a, if we divide a by n, we get an integer quotient q and an integer remainder r that obey the following relationship: 0 … r 6 n; q = :a/n;

a = qn + r

(4.1)

where :x ; is the largest integer less than or equal to x. Equation (4.1) is referred to as the division algorithm.1 Figure 4.1a demonstrates that, given a and positive n, it is always possible to find q and r that satisfy the preceding relationship. Represent the integers on the number line; a will fall somewhere on that line (positive a is shown, a similar demonstration can be made for negative a). Starting at 0, proceed to n, 2n, up to qn , such that qn … a and (q + 1)n 7 a . The distance from qn to a is r , and we have found the unique values of q and r. The remainder r is often referred to as a residue. n n

2n

3n

qn

a

(q + 1)n

0 r

(a) General relationship

15

0

15

30 = 2 15

45 = 3 15

60 = 4 15

(b) Example: 70 = (4 15) + 10

Figure 4.1 1

70

75 = 5 15

10

The Relationship a = qn + r; 0 ≤ r < n

Equation 4.1 expresses a theorem rather than an algorithm, but by tradition, this is referred to as the division algorithm.

4.2 / THE EUCLIDEAN ALGORITHM

a = 11; a = -11;

n = 7; n = 7;

11 = 1 * 7 + 4; -11 = (-2) * 7 + 3;

r = 4 r = 3

105

q = 1 q = -2

Figure 4.1b provides another example.

4.2 THE EUCLIDEAN ALGORITHM One of the basic techniques of number theory is the Euclidean algorithm, which is a simple procedure for determining the greatest common divisor of two positive integers. First, we need a simple definition: Two integers are relatively prime if their only common positive integer factor is 1.

Greatest Common Divisor Recall that nonzero b is defined to be a divisor of a if a = mb for some m, where a, b, and m are integers. We will use the notation gcd(a, b) to mean the greatest common divisor of a and b. The greatest common divisor of a and b is the largest integer that divides both a and b. We also define gcd(0, 0) = 0. More formally, the positive integer c is said to be the greatest common divisor of a and b if 1. c is a divisor of a and of b. 2. Any divisor of a and b is a divisor of c. An equivalent definition is the following: gcd(a, b) = max[k, such that k ƒ a and k ƒ b] Because we require that the greatest common divisor be positive, gcd(a, b) = gcd(a, -b) = gcd( -a, b) = gcd( -a,-b). In general, gcd(a, b) = gcd( ƒ a ƒ , ƒ b ƒ ). gcd(60, 24) = gcd(60, -24) = 12 Also, because all nonzero integers divide 0, we have gcd(a, 0) = ƒ a ƒ . We stated that two integers a and b are relatively prime if their only common positive integer factor is 1. This is equivalent to saying that a and b are relatively prime if gcd(a, b) = 1. 8 and 15 are relatively prime because the positive divisors of 8 are 1, 2, 4, and 8, and the positive divisors of 15 are 1, 3, 5, and 15. So 1 is the only integer on both lists.

Finding the Greatest Common Divisor We now describe an algorithm credited to Euclid for easily finding the greatest common divisor of two integers. This algorithm has significance subsequently in this chapter. Suppose we have integers a, b such that d = gcd(a, b). Because

106

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

gcd( ƒ a ƒ , ƒ b ƒ ) = gcd(a, b), there is no harm in assuming a Ú b 7 0. Now dividing a by b and applying the division algorithm, we can state: a = q1b + r1

0 … r1 6 b

(4.2)

If it happens that r1 = 0, then b ƒ a and d = gcd(a, b) = b. But if r1 Z 0, we can state that d ƒ r1. This is due to the basic properties of divisibility: the relations d ƒ a and d ƒ b together imply that d ƒ (a - q1b), which is the same as d ƒ r1. Before proceeding with the Euclidian algorithm, we need to answer the question: What is the gcd(b, r1)? We know that d ƒ b and d ƒ r1. Now take any arbitrary integer c that divides both b and r1. Therefore, c ƒ (q1b + r1) = a. Because c divides both a and b, we must have c … d, which is the greatest common divisor of a and b. Therefore d = gcd(b, r1). Let us now return to Equation (4.2) and assume that r1 Z 0. Because b 7 r1, we can divide b by r1 and apply the division algorithm to obtain: b = q2r1 + r2

0 … r2 6 r1

As before, if r2 = 0 , then d = r1 and if r2 Z 0 , then d = gcd(r1, r2) . The division process continues until some zero remainder appears, say, at the (n + 1)th stage where rn - 1 is divided by rn. The result is the following system of equations: a = q1b + r1 b = q2r1 + r2 r1 = q3r2 + r3

# # #

rn - 2 = qnrn - 1 + rn rn - 1 = qn + 1rn + 0 d = gcd(a, b) = rn

0 6 r1 6 b 0 6 r2 6 r1 0 6 r3 6 r2

# # #

y

(4.3)

0 6 rn 6 rn - 1

At each iteration, we have d = gcd(ri, ri + 1) until finally d = gcd(rn, 0) = rn. Thus, we can find the greatest common divisor of two integers by repetitive application of the division algorithm. This scheme is known as the Euclidean algorithm. We have essentially argued from the top down that the final result is the gcd(a, b) . We can also argue from the bottom up. The first step is to show that rn divides a and b . It follows from the last division in Equation (4.3) that rn divides rn - 1 . The next to last division shows that rn divides rn - 2 because it divides both terms on the right. Successively, one sees that rn divides all ri’s and finally a and b. It remains to show that rn is the largest divisor that divides a and b. If we take any arbitrary integer that divides a and b, it must also divide r1, as explained previously. We can follow the sequence of equations in Equation (4.3) down and show that c must divide all ri ’s. Therefore c must divide rn , so that rn = gcd(a, b).

107

4.2 / THE EUCLIDEAN ALGORITHM

Let us now look at an example with relatively large numbers to see the power of this algorithm: To find d = gcd (a,b) = gcd (1160718174, 316258250) a = q1b + r1

1160718174 = 3 * 316258250 + 211943424 d = gcd(316258250, 211943424)

b = q2r1 + r2

316258250 = 1 * 211943424 + 104314826 d = gcd(211943424, 104314826)

r1 = q3r2 + r3

211943424 = 2 * 104314826 +

3313772 d = gcd(104314826, 3313772)

r2 = q4r3 + r4

104314826 = 31 * 3313772 +

1587894 d = gcd(3313772, 1587894)

r3 = q5r4 + r5

3313772 =

2 * 1587894 +

r4 = q6r5 + r6

1587894 =

11 * 137984 +

r5 = q7r6 + r7

137984 =

1 * 70070 +

67914 d = gcd(70070, 67914)

r6 = q8r7 + r8

70070 =

1 * 67914 +

2156 d = gcd(67914, 2156)

67914 =

31 * 2516 +

1078 d = gcd(2156, 1078)

2156 =

2 * 1078 +

r7 = q9r8 + r9 r8 = q10r9 + r10

137984 d = gcd(1587894, 137984) 70070 d = gcd(137984, 70070)

0 d = gcd(1078, 0) = 1078

Therefore, d = gcd(1160718174, 316258250) = 1078

In this example, we begin by dividing 1160718174 by 316258250, which gives 3 with a remainder of 211943424. Next we take 316258250 and divide it by 211943424. The process continues until we get a remainder of 0, yielding a result of 1078. It will be helpful in what follows to recast the above computation in tabular form. For every step of the iteration, we have ri - 2 = qiri - 1 + ri, where ri - 2 is the dividend, ri - 1 is the divisor, qi is the quotient, and ri is the remainder. Table 4.1 summarizes the results. Table 4.1 Euclidean Algorithm Example Dividend

Divisor

Quotient

Remainder

a = 1160718174

b = 316258250

q1 = 3

r1 = 211943424

b = 316258250

r1 = 211943434

q2 = 1

r2 = 104314826

r1 = 211943424

r2 = 104314826

q3 = 2

r3 =

3313772

r2 = 104314826

r3 =

3313772

q4 = 31

r4 =

1587894

r3 =

3313772

r4 =

1587894

q5 = 2

r5 =

137984

r4 =

1587894

r5 =

137984

q6 = 11

r6 =

70070

r5 =

137984

r6 =

70070

q7 = 1

r7 =

67914

r6 =

70070

r7 =

67914

q8 = 1

r8 =

2156

r7 =

67914

r8 =

2156

q9 = 31

r9 =

1078

r8 =

2156

r9 =

1078

q10 = 2

r10 =

0

108

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

4.3 MODULAR ARITHMETIC The Modulus If a is an integer and n is a positive integer, we define a mod n to be the remainder when a is divided by n. The integer n is called the modulus. Thus, for any integer a, we can rewrite Equation (4.1) as follows: a = qn + r

0 … r 6 n; q = :a/n;

a = :a/n; * n + (a mod n) 11 mod 7 = 4;

- 11 mod 7 = 3

Two integers a and b are said to be congruent modulo n, if (a mod n) = (b mod n). This is written as a K b (mod n).2 73 ‚ 4 (mod 23);

21 ‚ -9 (mod 10)

Note that if a K 0 (mod n), then n ƒ a.

Properties of Congruences Congruences have the following properties: 1. a K b (mod n) if n ƒ (a - b). 2. a K b (mod n) implies b K a (mod n). 3. a K b (mod n) and b K c (mod n) imply a K c (mod n). To demonstrate the first point, if n ƒ (a - b), then (a - b) = kn for some k. So we can write a = b + kn. Therefore, (a mod n) = (remainder when b + kn is divided by n) = (remainder when b is divided by n) = (b mod n). 23 K 8 (mod 5) -11 K 5 (mod 8) 81 K 0 (mod 27)

because because because

23 - 8 = 15 = 5 * 3 -11 - 5 = -16 = 8 * (-2) 81 - 0 = 81 = 27 * 3

The remaining points are as easily proved.

Modular Arithmetic Operations Note that, by definition (Figure 4.1), the (mod n) operator maps all integers into the set of integers {0, 1, Á , (n - 1)}. This suggests the question: Can we perform arithmetic 2

We have just used the operator mod in two different ways: first as a binary operator that produces a remainder, as in the expression a mod b; second as a congruence relation that shows the equivalence of two integers, as in the expression a K b(mod n). See Appendix 4A for a discussion.

4.3 / MODULAR ARITHMETIC

109

operations within the confines of this set? It turns out that we can; this technique is known as modular arithmetic. Modular arithmetic exhibits the following properties: 1. [(a mod n) + (b mod n)] mod n = (a + b) mod n 2. [(a mod n) - (b mod n)] mod n = (a - b) mod n 3. [(a mod n) * (b mod n)] mod n = (a * b) mod n We demonstrate the first property. Define (a mod n) = ra and (b mod n) = rb. Then we can write a = ra + jn for some integer j and b = rb + kn for some integer k. Then (a + b) mod n = = = =

(ra + jn + rb + kn) mod n (ra + rb + (k + j)n) mod n (ra + rb) mod n [(a mod n) + (b mod n)]mod n

The remaining properties are proven as easily. Here are examples of the three properties: 11 mod 8 = 3; 15 mod 8 = 7 [(11 mod 8) + (15 mod 8)] mod 8 = 10 mod 8 = 2 (11 + 15) mod 8 = 26 mod 8 = 2 [(11 mod 8) - (15 mod 8)] mod 8 = -4 mod 8 = 4 (11 - 15) mod 8 = -4 mod 8 = 4 [(11 mod 8) * (15 mod 8)] mod 8 = 21 mod 8 = 5 (11 * 15) mod 8 = 165 mod 8 = 5 Exponentiation is performed by repeated multiplication, as in ordinary arithmetic. (We have more to say about exponentiation in Chapter 8.) To find 117 mod 13, we can proceed as follows: 112 = 121 K 4 (mod 13) 114 = (112)2 K 4 2 K 3 (mod 13) 117 K 11 * 4 * 3 K 132 K 2 (mod 13) Thus, the rules for ordinary arithmetic involving addition, subtraction, and multiplication carry over into modular arithmetic. Table 4.2 provides an illustration of modular addition and multiplication modulo 8. Looking at addition, the results are straightforward, and there is a regular pattern to the matrix. Both matrices are symmetric about the main diagonal in conformance to the commutative property of addition and multiplication. As in ordinary addition, there is an additive inverse, or negative, to each integer in modular arithmetic. In this case, the negative of an integer x is the integer y such that

110

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS Table 4.2 Arithmetic Modulo 8 +

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1

0 1

1 2

2 3

3 4

4 5

5 6

6 7

7 0

2

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

3

3

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

4

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

5

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

4

6

6

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

7

7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

(a) Addition modulo 8 ×

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 1

0 0

0 1

0 2

0 3

0 4

0 5

0 6

0 7

w

-w w-1

0

0

1

7

— 1

6

—

2

0

2

4

6

0

2

4

6

2

3

0

3

6

1

4

7

2

5

3

5

3

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

0

4

4

4

—

5

0

5

2

7

4

1

6

3

5

3

5

2

—

1

7

6

0

6

4

2

0

6

4

2

6

7

0

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

7

(b) Multiplication modulo 8

(c) Additive and multiplicative inverses modulo 8

(x + y) mod 8 = 0. To find the additive inverse of an integer in the left-hand column, scan across the corresponding row of the matrix to find the value 0; the integer at the top of that column is the additive inverse; thus, (2 + 6) mod 8 = 0. Similarly, the entries in the multiplication table are straightforward. In ordinary arithmetic, there is a multiplicative inverse, or reciprocal, to each integer. In modular arithmetic mod 8, the multiplicative inverse of x is the integer y such that (x * y) mod 8 = 1 mod 8. Now, to find the multiplicative inverse of an integer from the multiplication table, scan across the matrix in the row for that integer to find the value 1; the integer at the top of that column is the multiplicative inverse; thus, (3 * 3) mod 8 = 1. Note that not all integers mod 8 have a multiplicative inverse; more about that later.

Properties of Modular Arithmetic Define the set Z n as the set of nonnegative integers less than n: Z n = {0, 1, Á , (n - 1)} This is referred to as the set of residues, or residue classes (mod n). To be more precise, each integer in Z n represents a residue class. We can label the residue classes (mod n) as [0], [1], [2], Á , [n - 1], where [r] = {a: a is an integer, a K r (mod n)}

4.3 / MODULAR ARITHMETIC

111

The residue classes (mod 4) are [0] [1] [2] [3]

= = = =

{Á, {Á, {Á, {Á,

-16, -15, -14, -13,

-12, -8, -4, 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, Á } -11, -7, -3, 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, Á } -10, -6, -2, 2, 6, 10, 14, 18, Á } -9, -5, -1, 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, Á }

Of all the integers in a residue class, the smallest nonnegative integer is the one used to represent the residue class. Finding the smallest nonnegative integer to which k is congruent modulo n is called reducing k modulo n. If we perform modular arithmetic within Z n, the properties shown in Table 4.3 hold for integers in Z n. We show in the next section that this implies that Z n is a commutative ring with a multiplicative identity element. There is one peculiarity of modular arithmetic that sets it apart from ordinary arithmetic. First, observe that (as in ordinary arithmetic) we can write the following: if (a + b) K (a + c) (mod n) then b K c (mod n)

(4.4)

(5 + 23) K (5 + 7) (mod 8); 23 K 7(mod 8) Equation (4.4) is consistent with the existence of an additive inverse. Adding the additive inverse of a to both sides of Equation (4.4), we have ((-a) + a + b) K ((-a) + a + c) (mod n) b K c (mod n) However, the following statement is true only with the attached condition: if (a * b) K (a * c) (mod n) then b K c (mod n) if a is relatively prime to n (4.5) Recall that two integers are relatively prime if their only common positive integer factor is 1. Similar to the case of Equation (4.4), we can say that Equation (4.5) is Table 4.3 Properties of Modular Arithmetic for Integers in Zn Property Commutative Laws Associative Laws Distributive Law Identities Additive Inverse (–w)

Expression (w + x) mod n = (x + w) mod n (w * x) mod n = (x + w) mod n [(w + x) + y] mod n = [w + (x + y)] mod n [(w * x) * y] mod n = [w * (x * y)] mod n [w * (x + y)] mod n = [(w * x) + (w * y)] mod n (0 + w) mod n = w mod n (1 * w) mod n = w mod n For each w H Zn, there exists a a z such that w + z K 0 mod n

112

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

consistent with the existence of a multiplicative inverse. Applying the multiplicative inverse of a to both sides of Equation (4.5), we have ((a - 1)ab) K ((a - 1)ac) (mod n) b K c (mod n) To see this, consider an example in which the condition of Equation (4.5) does not hold. The integers 6 and 8 are not relatively prime, since they have the common factor 2. We have the following: 6 * 3 = 18 K 2 (mod 8) 6 * 7 = 42 K 2 (mod 8) Yet 3 [ 7 (mod 8). The reason for this strange result is that for any general modulus n, a multiplier a that is applied in turn to the integers 0 through (n - 1) will fail to produce a complete set of residues if a and n have any factors in common. With a = 6 and n = 8, Z8 Multiply by 6 Residues

0 0 0

1 6 6

2 12 4

3 18 2

4 24 0

5 30 6

6 36 4

7 42 2

Because we do not have a complete set of residues when multiplying by 6, more than one integer in Z 8 maps into the same residue. Specifically, 6 * 0 mod 8 = 6 * 4 mod 8; 6 * 1 mod 8 = 6 * 5 mod 8 ; and so on. Because this is a many-to-one mapping, there is not a unique inverse to the multiply operation. However, if we take a = 5 and n = 8, whose only common factor is 1, Z8 Multiply by 5 Residues

0 0 0

1 5 5

2 10 2

3 15 7

4 20 4

5 25 1

6 30 6

7 35 3

The line of residues contains all the integers in Z 8, in a different order.

In general, an integer has a multiplicative inverse in Z n if that integer is relatively prime to n. Table 4.2c shows that the integers 1, 3, 5, and 7 have a multiplicative inverse in Z 8; but 2, 4, and 6 do not.

Euclidean Algorithm Revisited The Euclidean algorithm can be based on the following theorem: For any nonnegative integer a and any positive integer b, gcd(a, b) = gcd(b, a mod b)

(4.6)

4.3 / MODULAR ARITHMETIC

113

gcd(55, 22) = gcd(22, 55 mod 22) = gcd(22, 11) = 11 To see that Equation (4.6) works, let d = gcd(a, b). Then, by the definition of gcd, d ƒ a and d ƒ b. For any positive integer b, we can express a as a = kb + r K r (mod b) a mod b = r with k, r integers.Therefore, (a mod b) = a - kb for some integer k. But because d ƒ b, it also divides kb.We also have d ƒ a.Therefore, d ƒ (a mod b).This shows that d is a common divisor of b and (a mod b). Conversely, if d is a common divisor of b and (a mod b), then d ƒ kb and thus d ƒ [kb + (a mod b)], which is equivalent to d ƒ a.Thus, the set of common divisors of a and b is equal to the set of common divisors of b and (a mod b).Therefore, the gcd of one pair is the same as the gcd of the other pair, proving the theorem. Equation (4.6) can be used repetitively to determine the greatest common divisor. gcd(18, 12) = gcd(12, 6) = gcd(6, 0) = 6 gcd(11, 10) = gcd(10, 1) = gcd(1, 0) = 1 This is the same scheme shown in Equation (4.3), which can be rewritten in the following way. Euclidean Algorithm Calculate

Which satisfies

r1 = a mod b

a = q1b + r1

r2 = b mod r1 r3 = r1 mod r2

b = q2r1 + r2 r1 = q3r2 + r3

• • •

• • •

rn = rn - 2 mod rn - 1 rn + 1 = rn - 1 mod rn = 0

rn - 2 = qnrn - 1 + rn rn - 1 = qn + 1rn + 0 d = gcd(a, b) = rn

We can define the Euclidean algorithm concisely as the following recursive function. Euclid(a,b) if (b=0) then return a; else return Euclid(b, a mod b);

The Extended Euclidean Algorithm We now proceed to look at an extension to the Euclidean algorithm that will be important for later computations in the area of finite fields and in encryption algorithms, such as RSA. For given integers a and b, the extended Euclidean algorithm not only calculate the greatest common divisor d but also two additional integers x and y that satisfy the following equation.

114

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

ax + by = d = gcd(a, b)

(4.7)

It should be clear that x and y will have opposite signs. Before examining the algorithm, let us look at some of the values of x and y when a = 42 and b = 30. Note that gcd(42, 30) = 6. Here is a partial table of values3 for 42x + 30y. –3

–2

–1

0

1

2

3

–3 –2

–216 –186

–174 –144

–132 –102

–90 –60

–48 –18

–6 24

36 66

–1

–156

–114

–72

–30

12

54

96

0

–126

–84

–42

0

42

84

126

1

–96

–54

–12

30

72

114

156

2

–66

–24

18

60

102

144

186

3

–36

6

48

90

132

174

216

x y

Observer that all of the entries are divisible by 6. This is not surprising, because both 42 and 30 are divisible by 6, so every number of the form 42x + 30y = 6(7x + 5y) is a multiple of 6. Note also that gcd(42, 30) = 6 appears in the table. In general, it can be shown that for given integers a and b, the smallest positive value of ax + by is equal to gcd(a, b). Now let us show how to extend the Euclidean algorithm to determine (x, y, d) given a and b. We again go through the sequence of divisions indicated in Equation (4.3), and we assume that at each step i we can find integers xi and yi that satisfy ri = axi + byi. We end up with the following sequence. a = q1b + r1 b = q2r1 + r2 r1 = q3r2 + r3

r1 = ax1 + by1 r2 = ax2 + by2 r3 = ax3 + by3

rn - 2 = qnrn - 1 + rn rn - 1 = qn + 1rn + 0

rn = axn + byn

# # #

# # #

Now, observe that we can rearrange terms to write ri = ri - 2 - ri - 1 qi Also, in rows i - 1 and i - 2, we find the values ri - 2 = axi - 2 + byi - 2

and ri - 1 = axi - 1 + byi - 1

Substituting into Equation (4.8), we have ri = (axi - 2 + byi - 2) - (axi - 1 + byi - 1)qi = a(xi - 2 - qixi - 1) + b(yi - 2 - qiyi - 1) 3

This example is taken from [SILV06].

(4.8)

4.3 / MODULAR ARITHMETIC

115

But we have already assumed that ri = axi + byi. Therefore, xi = xi - 2 - qixi - 1

and yi = yi - 2 - qiyi - 1

We now summarize the calculations: Extended Euclidean Algorithm Calculate r-1 = a r0 = b r1 = a mod b q1 = :a/b; r2 = b mod r1 q2 = :b/r1 ; r3 = r1 mod r2 q3 = :r1/r2 ; • • • rn = rn - 2 mod rn - 1 qn = :rn - 2/rn - 3 ; rn + 1 = rn - 1 mod rn = 0 qn + 1 = :rn - 1/rn - 2 ;

Which satisfies

a = q1b + r1 b = q2r1 + r2 r1 = q3r2 + r3

rn - 2

• • • = qnrn - 1 + rn

Calculate x - 1 = 1; y - 1 = 0 x0 = 0; y0 = 1 x1 = x - 1 - q1x0 = 1 y1 = y - 1 - q1y0 = -q1 x2 = x0 - q2x1 y2 = y0 - q2y1 x3 = x1 - q3x2 y3 = y1 - q3y2

xn = xn - 2 yn = yn - 2

• • • - qnxn - 1 - qnyn - 1

rn - 1 = qn + 1rn + 0

Which satisfies a = ax - 1 + by - 1 b = ax0 + by0 r1 = ax1 + by1 r2 = ax2 + by2 r3 = ax3 + by3 • • • rn = axn + byn d = gcd(a, b) = rn x = xn; y = yn

We need to make several additional comments here. In each row, we calculate a new remainder ri based on the remainders of the previous two rows, namely ri - 1 and ri - 2. To start the algorithm, we need values for r0 and r- 1, which are just a and b. It is then straightforward to determine the required values for x - 1, y- 1, x0, and y0. We know from the original Euclidean algorithm that the process ends with a remainder of zero and that the greatest common divisor of a and b is d = gcd(a, b) = rn. But we also have determined that d = rn = axn + byn. Therefore, in Equation (4.7), x = xn and y = yn. As an example, let us use a = 1759 and b = 550 and solve for 1759x + 550y = gcd(1759, 550). The results are shown in Table 4.4. Thus, we have 1759 × (–111) + 550 × 355 = –195249 + 195250 = 1. Table 4.4 Extended Euclidean Algorithm Example i

ri

–1 0

1759 550

1

109

2

5

3

xi

yi

1 0

0 1

3

1

–3

5

–5

16

4

21

106

–339

4

1

1

–111

355

5

0

4

Result: d = 1; x = - 111; y = 355

qi

116

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

4.4 GROUPS, RINGS, AND FIELDS Groups, rings, and fields are the fundamental elements of a branch of mathematics known as abstract algebra, or modern algebra. In abstract algebra, we are concerned with sets on whose elements we can operate algebraically; that is, we can combine two elements of the set, perhaps in several ways, to obtain a third element of the set. These operations are subject to specific rules, which define the nature of the set. By convention, the notation for the two principal classes of operations on set elements is usually the same as the notation for addition and multiplication on ordinary numbers. However, it is important to note that, in abstract algebra, we are not limited to ordinary arithmetical operations. All this should become clear as we proceed.

Groups

#

#

A group G, sometimes denoted by {G, }, is a set of elements with a binary operation denoted by that associates to each ordered pair (a, b) of elements in G an element (a b) in G, such that the following axioms are obeyed:4

#

(A1) Closure: (A2) Associative: (A3) Identity element: (A4) Inverse element:

# #

#

# #

If a and b belong to G, then a b is also in G. a (b c) = (a b) c for all a, b, c in G. There is an element e in G such that a e = e a = a for all a in G. For each a in G, there is an element a¿ in G such that a a¿ = a¿ a = e.

#

#

#

#

Let Nn denote a set of n distinct symbols that, for convenience, we represent as {1, 2, Á , n}. A permutation of n distinct symbols is a one-to-one mapping from Nn to Nn.5 Define Sn to be the set of all permutations of n distinct symbols. Each element of Sn is represented by a permutation of the integers p in 1, 2, Á , n. It is easy to demonstrate that Sn is a group:

#

A1: If (p, r H Sn), then the composite mapping p r is formed by permuting the elements of ρ according to the permutation π. For example, {3, 2, 1} {1, 3, 2} = {2, 3, 1}. Clearly, p r H Sn. A2: The composition of mappings is also easily seen to be associative. A3: The identity mapping is the permutation that does not alter the order of the n elements. For Sn, the identity element is {1, 2, Á , n}. A4: For any p H Sn, the mapping that undoes the permutation defined by p is the inverse element for p. There will always be such an inverse. For example {2, 3, 1} {3, 1, 2} = {1, 2, 3}.

#

#

#

4 The 5

operator • is generic and can refer to addition, multiplication, or some other mathematical operation. This is equivalent to the definition of permutation in Chapter 2, which stated that a permutation of a finite set of elements S is an ordered sequence of all the elements of S, with each element appearing exactly once.

4.4 / GROUPS, RINGS, AND FIELDS

117

If a group has a finite number of elements, it is referred to as a finite group, and the order of the group is equal to the number of elements in the group. Otherwise, the group is an infinite group. A group is said to be abelian if it satisfies the following additional condition: (A5) Commutative:

#

#

a b = b a for all a, b in G.

The set of integers (positive, negative, and 0) under addition is an abelian group. The set of nonzero real numbers under multiplication is an abelian group. The set Sn from the preceding example is a group but not an abelian group for n 7 2. When the group operation is addition, the identity element is 0; the inverse element of a is –a ; and subtraction is defined with the following rule: a - b = a + (-b).

# #

C YCLIC G ROUP We define exponentiation within a group as a repeated application of the group operator, so that a 3 = a a a. Furthermore, we define a 0 = e as the identity element, and a - n = (a¿)n , where a¿ is the inverse element of a within the group. A group G is cyclic if every element of G is a power a k (k is an integer) of a fixed element a H G. The element a is said to generate the group G or to be a generator of G. A cyclic group is always abelian and may be finite or infinite. The additive group of integers is an infinite cyclic group generated by the element 1. In this case, powers are interpreted additively, so that n is the nth power of 1.

Rings A ring R, sometimes denoted by {R, +, *}, is a set of elements with two binary operations, called addition and multiplication,6 such that for all a , b , c in R the following axioms are obeyed. (A1–A5) R is an abelian group with respect to addition; that is, R satisfies axioms A1 through A5. For the case of an additive group, we denote the identity element as 0 and the inverse of a as –a. (M1) Closure under multiplication: If a and b belong to R, then ab is also in R. (M2) Associativity of multiplication: a(bc) = (ab)c for all a, b, c in R. (M3) Distributive laws: a(b + c) = ab + ac for all a, b, c in R. (a + b)c = ac + bc for all a, b, c in R. In essence, a ring is a set in which we can do addition, subtraction [a - b = a + (-b)], and multiplication without leaving the set. 6 Generally, we do not use the multiplication symbol, ×, but denote multiplication by the concatenation of two elements.

118

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

With respect to addition and multiplication, the set of all n-square matrices over the real numbers is a ring. A ring is said to be commutative if it satisfies the following additional condition: (M4) Commutativity of multiplication:

ab = ba for all a, b in R.

Let S be the set of even integers (positive, negative, and 0) under the usual operations of addition and multiplication. S is a commutative ring. The set of all n-square matrices defined in the preceding example is not a commutative ring. The set Zn of integers {0, 1, Á , n - 1}, together with the arithmetic operations modulo n, is a commutative ring (Table 4.3). Next, we define an integral domain, which is a commutative ring that obeys the following axioms. (M5) Multiplicative identity: There is an element 1 in R such that a1 = 1a = a for all a in R. (M6) No zero divisors:

If a, b in R and ab = 0, then either a = 0 or b = 0.

Let S be the set of integers, positive, negative, and 0, under the usual operations of addition and multiplication. S is an integral domain.

Fields A field F, sometimes denoted by {F, +, *}, is a set of elements with two binary operations, called addition and multiplication, such that for all a, b, c in F the following axioms are obeyed. (A1–M6) F is an integral domain; that is, F satisfies axioms A1 through A5 and M1 through M6. (M7) Multiplicative inverse: For each a in F, except 0, there is an element a - 1 in F such that aa - 1 = (a - 1)a = 1. In essence, a field is a set in which we can do addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division without leaving the set. Division is defined with the following rule: a/b = a(b - 1). Familiar examples of fields are the rational numbers, the real numbers, and the complex numbers. Note that the set of all integers is not a field, because not every element of the set has a multiplicative inverse; in fact, only the elements 1 and –1 have multiplicative inverses in the integers. Figure 4.2 summarizes the axioms that define groups, rings, and fields.

Group

Abelian group

Ring

Commutative ring

Integral domain

Field

(A1) Closure under addition: (A2) Associativity of addition: (A3) Additive identity: (A4) Additive inverse: (A5) Commutativity of addition: (M1) Closure under multiplication: (M2) Associativity of multiplication: (M3) Distributive laws: (M4) Commutativity of multiplication: (M5) Multiplicative identity: (M6) No zero divisors: (M7) Multiplicative inverse:

Figure 4.2

Groups, Ring, and Field

If a and b belong to S, then a  b is also in S a  (b  c)  (a  b)  c for all a, b, c in S There is an element 0 in R such that a  0  0  a  a for all a in S For each a in S there is an element a in S such that a  (a)  (a)  a  0 a  b  b  a for all a, b in S If a and b belong to S, then ab is also in S a(bc)  (ab)c for all a, b, c in S a(b  c)  ab  ac for all a, b, c in S (a  b)c  ac  bc for all a, b, c in S ab  ba for all a, b in S There is an element 1 in S such that a1  1a  a for all a in S If a, b in S and ab  0, then either a  0 or b  0 If a belongs to S and a 0, there is an element a1 in S such that aa1  a1a  1

119

120

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

4.5 FINITE FIELDS OF THE FORM GF(p) In Section 4.4, we defined a field as a set that obeys all of the axioms of Figure 4.2 and gave some examples of infinite fields. Infinite fields are not of particular interest in the context of cryptography. However, finite fields play a crucial role in many cryptographic algorithms. It can be shown that the order of a finite field (number of elements in the field) must be a power of a prime pn, where n is a positive integer. We discuss prime numbers in detail in Chapter 8. Here, we need only say that a prime number is an integer whose only positive integer factors are itself and 1. That is, the only positive integers that are divisors of p are p and 1. The finite field of order pn is generally written GF(pn); GF stands for Galois field, in honor of the mathematician who first studied finite fields. Two special cases are of interest for our purposes. For n = 1, we have the finite field GF(p); this finite field has a different structure than that for finite fields with n 7 1 and is studied in this section. In Section 4.7, we look at finite fields of the form GF(2 n).

Finite Fields of Order p For a given prime, p, we define the finite field of order p, GF(p), as the set Z p of integers {0, 1, Á , p - 1} together with the arithmetic operations modulo p. Recall that we showed in Section 4.3 that the set Z n of integers {0, 1, Á , n - 1}, together with the arithmetic operations modulo n, is a commutative ring (Table 4.3). We further observed that any integer in Z n has a multiplicative inverse if and only if that integer is relatively prime to n [see discussion of Equation (4.5)]7 If n is prime, then all of the nonzero integers in Z n are relatively prime to n, and therefore there exists a multiplicative inverse for all of the nonzero integers in Z n. Thus, for Z p we can add the following properties to those listed in Table 4.3: Multiplicative inverse (w - 1)

For each w H Z p, w Z 0, there exists a z H Z p such that w * z K 1 (mod p)

Because w is relatively prime to p, if we multiply all the elements of Z p by w, the resulting residues are all of the elements of Z p permuted. Thus, exactly one of the residues has the value 1. Therefore, there is some integer in Z p that, when multiplied by w, yields the residue 1. That integer is the multiplicative inverse of w, designated w - 1.Therefore, Z p is in fact a finite field. Furthermore, Equation (4.5) is consistent with the existence of a multiplicative inverse and can be rewritten without the condition: if (a * b) K (a * c)(mod p) then b K c (mod p)

(4.9)

Multiplying both sides of Equation (4.9) by the multiplicative inverse of a, we have ((a - 1) * a * b) K ((a - 1) * a * c) (mod p) b K c (mod p) 7

As stated in the discussion of Equation (4.5), two integers are relatively prime if their only common positive integer factor is 1.

4.5 / FINITE FIELDS OF THE FORM GF(p)

121

The simplest finite field is GF(2). Its arithmetic operations are easily summarized: + 0 1

0 0 1

* 0 1

1 1 0

Addition

0 0 0

1 0 1

Multiplication

-w 0 1

w 0 1

w-1 — 1

Inverses

In this case, addition is equivalent to the exclusive-OR (XOR) operation, and multiplication is equivalent to the logical AND operation.

Table 4.5 shows arithmetic operations in GF(7). This is a field of order 7 using modular arithmetic modulo 7. As can be seen, it satisfies all of the properties required of a field (Figure 4.2). Compare this table with Table 4.2. In the latter case, we see that the set Z8, using modular arithmetic modulo 8, is not a field. Later in this chapter, we show how to define addition and multiplication operations on Z8 in such a way as to form a finite field.

Finding the Multiplicative Inverse in GF(p) It is easy to find the multiplicative inverse of an element in GF(p) for small values of p. You simply construct a multiplication table, such as shown in Table 4.5b, and the desired result can be read directly. However, for large values of p, this approach is not practical. Table 4.5 Arithmetic in GF(7) + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 0

2 2 3 4 5 6 0 1

3 3 4 5 6 0 1 2

4 4 5 6 0 1 2 3

5 5 6 0 1 2 3 4

6 6 0 1 2 3 4 5

5 0 5 3 1 6 4 2

6 0 6 5 4 3 2 1

(a) Addition modulo 7 × 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 0 2 4 6 1 3 5

3 0 3 6 2 5 1 4

4 0 4 1 5 2 6 3

(b) Multiplication modulo 7

w 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

-w 0 6 5 4 3 2 1

w-1 — 1 4 5 2 3 6

(c) Additive and multiplicative inverses modulo 7

122

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

If a and b are relatively prime, then b has a multiplicative inverse modulo a. That is, if gcd(a, b) = 1, then b has a multiplicative inverse modulo a. That is, for positive integer b 6 a, there exists a b - 1 6 a such that bb - 1 = 1 mod a. If a is a prime number and b 6 a, then clearly a and b are relatively prime and have a greatest common divisor of 1. We now show that we can easily compute b - 1 using the extended Euclidean algorithm. We repeat here Equation (4.7), which we showed can be solved with the extended Euclidean algorithm: ax + by = d = gcd(a, b) Now, if gcd(a, b) = 1, then we have ax + by = 1. Using the basic equalities of modular arithmetic, defined in Section 4.3, we can say [(ax mod a) + (by mod a)] mod a = 1 mod a 0 + (by mod a) = 1 But if by mod a = 1, then y = b - 1. Thus, applying the extended Euclidean algorithm to Equation (4.7) yields the value of the multiplicative inverse of b if gcd(a, b) = 1. Consider the example that was shown in Table 4.4. Here we have a = 1759 , which is a prime number, and b = 550. The solution of the equation 1759x + 550y = d yields a value of y = 355. Thus, b - 1 = 355. To verify, we calculate 550 × 355 mod 1759 = 195250 mod 1759 = 1. More generally, the extended Euclidean algorithm can be used to find a multiplicative inverse in Z n for any n. If we apply the extended Euclidean algorithm to the equation nx + by = d, and the algorithm yields d = 1, then y = b - 1 in Z n.

Summary In this section, we have shown how to construct a finite field of order p, where p is prime. Specifically, we defined GF(p) with the following properties. 1. GF(p) consists of p elements. 2. The binary operations + and × are defined over the set. The operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division can be performed without leaving the set. Each element of the set other than 0 has a multiplicative inverse. We have shown that the elements of GF(p) are the integers {0, 1, Á , p - 1} and that the arithmetic operations are addition and multiplication mod p.

4.6 POLYNOMIAL ARITHMETIC Before continuing our discussion of finite fields, we need to introduce the interesting subject of polynomial arithmetic. We are concerned with polynomials in a single variable x, and we can distinguish three classes of polynomial arithmetic. • Ordinary polynomial arithmetic, using the basic rules of algebra. • Polynomial arithmetic in which the arithmetic on the coefficients is performed modulo p ; that is, the coefficients are in GF(p).

4.6 / POLYNOMIAL ARITHMETIC

123

• Polynomial arithmetic in which the coefficients are in GF(p), and the polynomials are defined modulo a polynomial m(x) whose highest power is some integer n. This section examines the first two classes, and the next section covers the last class.

Ordinary Polynomial Arithmetic A polynomial of degree n (integer n Ú 0) is an expression of the form n

f(x) = anx n + an - 1xn - 1 + Á + a1x + a0 = a ai x i i=0

where the ai are elements of some designated set of numbers S , called the coefficient set, and an Z 0 . We say that such polynomials are defined over the coefficient set S. A zero-degree polynomial is called a constant polynomial and is simply an element of the set of coefficients. An nth-degree polynomial is said to be a monic polynomial if an = 1. In the context of abstract algebra, we are usually not interested in evaluating a polynomial for a particular value of x [e.g., f(7)]. To emphasize this point, the variable x is sometimes referred to as the indeterminate. Polynomial arithmetic includes the operations of addition, subtraction, and multiplication. These operations are defined in a natural way as though the variable x was an element of S. Division is similarly defined, but requires that S be a field. Examples of fields include the real numbers, rational numbers, and Z p for p prime. Note that the set of all integers is not a field and does not support polynomial division. Addition and subtraction are performed by adding or subtracting corresponding coefficients. Thus, if n

f(x) = a ai xi; i=0

m

g(x) = a bi xi;

n Ú m

i=0

then addition is defined as m

f(x) + g(x) = a (ai + bi)x i + i=0

n i a aix

i=m+1

and multiplication is defined as n+m

f(x) * g(x) = a ci x i i=0

where ck = a0 bk + a1 bk - 1 + Á + ak - 1 b1 + ak b0 In the last formula, we treat ai as zero for i 7 n and bi as zero for i 7 m. Note that the degree of the product is equal to the sum of the degrees of the two polynomials.

124

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

As an example, let f(x) = x3 + x2 + 2 and g(x) = x2 - x + 1, where S is the set of integers. Then f(x) + g(x) = x3 + 2x2 - x + 3 f(x) - g(x) = x3 + x + 1 f(x) * g(x) = x5 + 3x2 - 2x + 2 Figures 4.3a through 4.3c show the manual calculations. We comment on division subsequently.

Polynomial Arithmetic with Coefficients in Z p Let us now consider polynomials in which the coefficients are elements of some field F; we refer to this as a polynomial over the field F. In that case, it is easy to show that the set of such polynomials is a ring, referred to as a polynomial ring. That is, if we consider each distinct polynomial to be an element of the set, then that set is a ring.8 When polynomial arithmetic is performed on polynomials over a field, then division is possible. Note that this does not mean that exact division is possible. Let us clarify this distinction. Within a field, given two elements a and b, the quotient a/bis also an element of the field. However, given a ring R that is not a field, in

x3 + x2

x3 + x2

+ 2

+ ( x2 – x + 1 )

–

x3 +2x2 – x + 3

x3

× (

x2

x3

x2

+

– x 4 – x3

– x + 1)

x2

– x + 1

x3 + x2 x3

+ 2

–

+ 2x2

x5

+3x2 – 2x + 2

x2

+ 2 + x

2x2 – x + 2

– 2x

(c) Multiplication

8

x + 2

+ 2

x5 + x4

Figure 4.3

+ x + 1

(b) Subtraction

(a) Addition

x3 + x2

+ 2

( x2 – x + 1 )

2x2 – 2x + 2 x (d) Division

Examples of Polynomial Arithmetic

In fact, the set of polynomials whose coefficients are elements of a commutative ring forms a polynomial ring, but that is of no interest in the present context.

4.6 / POLYNOMIAL ARITHMETIC

125

general, division will result in both a quotient and a remainder; this is not exact division. Consider the division 5/3 within a set S . If S is the set of rational numbers, which is a field, then the result is simply expressed as 5/3 and is an element of S . Now suppose that S is the field Z 7 . In this case, we calculate (using Table 4.5c) 5/3 = (5 * 3 - 1) mod 7 = (5 * 5) mod 7 = 4 which is an exact solution. Finally, suppose that S is the set of integers, which is a ring but not a field. Then 5/3 produces a quotient of 1 and a remainder of 2: 5/3 = 1 + 2/3 5 = 1 * 3 + 2 Thus, division is not exact over the set of integers. Now, if we attempt to perform polynomial division over a coefficient set that is not a field, we find that division is not always defined. If the coefficient set is the integers, then (5x2)/(3x) does not have a solution, because it would require a coefficient with a value of 5/3, which is not in the coefficient set. Suppose that we perform the same polynomial division over Z7. Then we have (5x2)/(3x) = 4x, which is a valid polynomial over Z7. However, as we demonstrate presently, even if the coefficient set is a field, polynomial division is not necessarily exact. In general, division will produce a quotient and a remainder. We can restate the division algorithm of Equation (4.1) for polynomials over a field as follows. Given polynomials f(x) of degree n and g(x) of degree (m), (n Ú m), if we divide f(x) by g(x), we get a quotient q(x) and a remainder r(x) that obey the relationship f(x) = q(x)g(x) + r(x)

(4.10)

with polynomial degrees: Degree f(x) = n Degree g(x) = m Degree q(x) = n - m Degree r(x) … m - 1 With the understanding that remainders are allowed, we can say that polynomial division is possible if the coefficient set is a field. In an analogy to integer arithmetic, we can write f(x) mod g(x) for the remainder r(x) in Equation (4.10). That is, r(x) = f(x) mod g(x). If there is no remainder [i.e., r(x) = 0], then we can say g(x) divides f(x), written as g(x) ƒ f(x). Equivalently, we can say that g(x) is a factor of f(x) or g(x) is a divisor of f(x).

126

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

For the preceding example [f(x) = x 3 + x 2 + 2 and g(x) = x 2 - x + 1], f(x)/g(x) produces a quotient of q(x) = x + 2 and a remainder r(x) = x, as shown in Figure 4.3d. This is easily verified by noting that q(x)g(x) + r(x) = (x + 2)(x 2 - x + 1) + x = (x 3 + x2 - x + 2) + x = x 3 + x2 + 2 = f(x)

For our purposes, polynomials over GF(2) are of most interest. Recall from Section 4.5 that in GF(2), addition is equivalent to the XOR operation, and multiplication is equivalent to the logical AND operation. Further, addition and subtraction are equivalent mod 2: 1 + 1 = 1 - 1 = 0; 1 + 0 = 1 - 0 = 1; 0 + 1 = 0 - 1 = 1 . Figure 4.4 shows an example of polynomial arithmetic over GF(2). For f(x) = (x7 + x5 + x4 + x3 + x + 1) and g(x) = (x3 + x + 1), the figure shows f(x) + g(x); f(x) - g(x); f(x) * g(x); and f(x)/g(x). Note that g(x) | f(x).

A polynomial f(x) over a field F is called irreducible if and only if f(x) cannot be expressed as a product of two polynomials, both over F, and both of degree lower than that of f(x). By analogy to integers, an irreducible polynomial is also called a prime polynomial. The polynomial9 f(x) = x4 + 1 over GF(2) is reducible, because x4 + 1 = (x + 1)(x3 + x2 + x + 1).

Consider the polynomial f(x) = x3 + x + 1. It is clear by inspection that x is not a factor of f(x). We easily show that x + 1 is not a factor of f(x): x2 + x > x + 1> x3 + x + 1 3 2 x + x x2 + x x2 + x 1 Thus, f(x) has no factors of degree 1. But it is clear by inspection that if f(x) is reducible, it must have one factor of degree 2 and one factor of degree 1. Therefore, f(x) is irreducible.

9

In the remainder of this chapter, unless otherwise noted, all examples are of polynomials over GF(2).

4.6 / POLYNOMIAL ARITHMETIC

x7

+ x5 + x4 + x3 +

x7

x5

+

127

+ x + 1

( x3

+ x + 1)

x4

+

(a) Addition x7

+ x 5 + x4 + x3 –

x7

+

x5

+

+ x + 1

( x3

+ x + 1)

x4

(b) Subtraction x7

+ x5 + x4 + x3 × ( x3

x7

+ x5 + x 4 + x 3

x8 x10

+

x8

+

x7

+

x6

+

x6

+

x5

x10

+

x4

+

x4

+

x4

+ x + 1 + x + 1) + x + 1 +

+

x2

+ x

x3 + x2

+ 1

(c) Multiplication x4 + 1 x3 + x + 1

x7 x7

+ x5 + x4 + x3 +

x5

+

+ x + 1

x4 x3

+ x + 1

x3

+ x + 1

(d) Division

Figure 4.4

Examples of Polynomial Arithmetic over GF(2)

Finding the Greatest Common Divisor We can extend the analogy between polynomial arithmetic over a field and integer arithmetic by defining the greatest common divisor as follows. The polynomial c(x) is said to be the greatest common divisor of a(x) and b(x) if the following are true. 1. c(x) divides both a(x) and b(x). 2. Any divisor of a(x) and b(x) is a divisor of c(x). An equivalent definition is the following: gcd[a(x), b(x)] is the polynomial of maximum degree that divides both a(x) and b(x). We can adapt the Euclidean algorithm to compute the greatest common divisor of two polynomials. The equality in Equation (4.6) can be rewritten as the following theorem.

128

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

gcd[a(x), b(x)] = gcd[b(x), a(x) mod b(x)]

(4.11)

Equation (4.11) can be used repetitively to determine the greatest common divisor. Compare the following scheme to the definition of the Euclidean algorithm for integers. Euclidean Algorithm for Polynomials Calculate

Which satisfies

r1(x) = a(x) mod b(x)

a(x) = q1(x)b(x) + r1(x)

r2(x) = b(x) mod r1(x)

b(x) = q2(x)r1(x) + r2(x)

r3(x) = r1(x) mod r2(x)

r1(x) = q3(x)r2(x) + r3(x)

• • •

• • •

rn(x) = rn - 2(x) mod rn - 1(x)

rn - 2(x) = qn(x)rn - 1(x) + rn(x)

rn + 1(x) = rn - 1(x) mod rn(x) = 0

rn - 1(x) = qn + 1(x)rn(x) + 0 d(x) = gcd(a(x), b(x)) = rn(x)

At each iteration, we have d(x) = gcd(ri + 1(x), ri(x)) until finally d(x) = gcd(rn(x), 0) = rn(x). Thus, we can find the greatest common divisor of two integers by repetitive application of the division algorithm. This is the Euclidean algorithm for polynomials. The algorithm assumes that the degree of a(x) is greater than the degree of b(x). Find gcd[a(x), b(x)] for a(x) = x6 + x5 + x4 + x3 + x2 + x + 1 and b(x) = x4 + x2 + x + 1. First, we divide a(x) by b(x): x2 + x x4 + x2 + x + 1>>x6 + x5 + x4 + x3 + x2 + x + 1 x6 + x4 + x3 + x2 x5 + x + 1 x5 + x3 + x2 + x x3 + x2 + 1 This yields r1(x) = x3 + x2 + 1 and q1 (x) = x2 + x. Then, we divide b(x) by r1(x). x + 1 4 > x + x + 1> x + x2 + x + 1 4 3 x + x + x 3 2 x + x + 1 x3 + x2 + 1 3

2

This yields r2(x) = 0 and q2(x) = x + 1. Therefore, gcd[a(x), b(x)] = r1(x) = x3 + x2 + 1.

4.7 / FINITE FIELDS OF THE FORM GF(2n)

129

Summary We began this section with a discussion of arithmetic with ordinary polynomials. In ordinary polynomial arithmetic, the variable is not evaluated; that is, we do not plug a value in for the variable of the polynomials. Instead, arithmetic operations are performed on polynomials (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division) using the ordinary rules of algebra. Polynomial division is not allowed unless the coefficients are elements of a field. Next, we discussed polynomial arithmetic in which the coefficients are elements of GF(p). In this case, polynomial addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are allowed. However, division is not exact; that is, in general division results in a quotient and a remainder. Finally, we showed that the Euclidean algorithm can be extended to find the greatest common divisor of two polynomials whose coefficients are elements of a field. All of the material in this section provides a foundation for the following section, in which polynomials are used to define finite fields of order pn.

4.7 FINITE FIELDS OF THE FORM GF(2n) Earlier in this chapter, we mentioned that the order of a finite field must be of the form pn, where p is a prime and n is a positive integer. In Section 4.5, we looked at the special case of finite fields with order p. We found that, using modular arithmetic in Zp, all of the axioms for a field (Figure 4.2) are satisfied. For polynomials over pn, with n 7 1, operations modulo pn do not produce a field. In this section, we show what structure satisfies the axioms for a field in a set with pn elements and concentrate on GF(2n).

Motivation Virtually all encryption algorithms, both symmetric and public key, involve arithmetic operations on integers. If one of the operations that is used in the algorithm is division, then we need to work in arithmetic defined over a field. For convenience and for implementation efficiency, we would also like to work with integers that fit exactly into a given number of bits with no wasted bit patterns. That is, we wish to work with integers in the range 0 through 2n - 1, which fit into an n-bit word.

Suppose we wish to define a conventional encryption algorithm that operates on data 8 bits at a time, and we wish to perform division.With 8 bits, we can represent integers in the range 0 through 255. However, 256 is not a prime number, so that if arithmetic is performed in Z256 (arithmetic modulo 256), this set of integers will not be a field. The closest prime number less than 256 is 251. Thus, the set Z251, using arithmetic modulo 251, is a field. However, in this case the 8-bit patterns representing the integers 251 through 255 would not be used, resulting in inefficient use of storage.

130

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

As the preceding example points out, if all arithmetic operations are to be used and we wish to represent a full range of integers in n bits, then arithmetic modulo 2n will not work. Equivalently, the set of integers modulo 2 n for n 7 1, is not a field. Furthermore, even if the encryption algorithm uses only addition and multiplication, but not division, the use of the set Z2n is questionable, as the following example illustrates.

Suppose we wish to use 3-bit blocks in our encryption algorithm and use only the operations of addition and multiplication. Then arithmetic modulo 8 is well defined, as shown in Table 4.2. However, note that in the multiplication table, the nonzero integers do not appear an equal number of times. For example, there are only four occurrences of 3, but twelve occurrences of 4. On the other hand, as was mentioned, there are finite fields of the form GF(2n), so there is in particular a finite field of order 2 3 = 8. Arithmetic for this field is shown in Table 4.6. In this case, the number of occurrences of the nonzero integers is uniform for multiplication. To summarize, Integer Occurrences in Z8 Occurrences in GF(23)

1 4 7

2 8 7

3 4 7

4 12 7

5 4 7

6 8 7

7 4 7

For the moment, let us set aside the question of how the matrices of Table 4.6 were constructed and instead make some observations. 1. The addition and multiplication tables are symmetric about the main diagonal, in conformance to the commutative property of addition and multiplication. This property is also exhibited in Table 4.2, which uses mod 8 arithmetic. 2. All the nonzero elements defined by Table 4.6 have a multiplicative inverse, unlike the case with Table 4.2. 3. The scheme defined by Table 4.6 satisfies all the requirements for a finite field. Thus, we can refer to this scheme as GF(23). 4. For convenience, we show the 3-bit assignment used for each of the elements of GF(23).

Intuitively, it would seem that an algorithm that maps the integers unevenly onto themselves might be cryptographically weaker than one that provides a uniform mapping. Thus, the finite fields of the form GF(2n) are attractive for cryptographic algorithms. To summarize, we are looking for a set consisting of 2n elements, together with a definition of addition and multiplication over the set that define a field. We can assign a unique integer in the range 0 through 2n - 1 to each element of the set.

4.7 / FINITE FIELDS OF THE FORM GF(2n)

131

Table 4.6 Arithmetic in GF(23) 000

001

010

011

100

101

110

111 7

+

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

000

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

001

1

1

0

3

2

5

4

7

6

010

2

2

3

0

1

6

7

4

5

011

3

3

2

1

0

7

6

5

4

100

4

4

5

6

7

0

1

2

3

101

5

5

4

7

6

1

0

3

2

110

6

6

7

4

5

2

3

0

1

111

7

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

(a) Addition 000

001

010

011

100

101

110

111

×

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

000

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

001

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

010

2

0

2

4

6

3

1

7

5

011

3

0

3

6

5

7

4

1

2

w

-w

w-1

0

0

—

1

1

1

2

2

5

3

3

6

4

7

100

4

0

4

3

7

6

2

5

1

4

101

5

0

5

1

4

2

7

3

6

5

5

2

110

6

0

6

7

1

5

3

2

4

6

6

3

111

7

0

7

5

2

1

6

4

3

7

7

4

(b) Multiplication

(c) Additive and multiplicative inverses

Keep in mind that we will not use modular arithmetic, as we have seen that this does not result in a field. Instead, we will show how polynomial arithmetic provides a means for constructing the desired field.

Modular Polynomial Arithmetic Consider the set S of all polynomials of degree n - 1 or less over the field Zp. Thus, each polynomial has the form n-1

f(x) = an - 1xn - 1 + an - 2xn - 2 + Á + a1x + a0 = a aixi i=0

where each ai takes on a value in the set {0, 1, Á , p - 1}. There are a total of pn different polynomials in S.

132

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

For p = 3 and n = 2, the 32 = 9 polynomials in the set are 0 1 2

x x + 1 x + 2

2x 2x + 1 2x + 2

For p = 2 and n = 3, the 23 = 8 polynomials in the set are 0 1 x

x + 1 x2 x2 + 1

x2 + x x2 + x + 1

With the appropriate definition of arithmetic operations, each such set S is a finite field. The definition consists of the following elements. 1. Arithmetic follows the ordinary rules of polynomial arithmetic using the basic rules of algebra, with the following two refinements. 2. Arithmetic on the coefficients is performed modulo p. That is, we use the rules of arithmetic for the finite field Zp. 3. If multiplication results in a polynomial of degree greater than n - 1, then the polynomial is reduced modulo some irreducible polynomial m(x) of degree n. That is, we divide by m(x) and keep the remainder. For a polynomial f(x), the remainder is expressed as r(x) = f(x) mod m(x). The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) uses arithmetic in the finite field GF(28), with the irreducible polynomial m(x) = x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1. Consider the two polynomials f(x) = x6 + x4 + x2 + x + 1 and g(x) = x7 + x + 1. Then f(x) + g(x) = x6 + x4 + x2 + x + 1 + x7 + x + 1 = x7 + x6 + x4 + x2 f(x) * g(x) = + + =

x13 + x11 + x9 + x8 + x7 x7 + x5 + x3 + x2 + x x6 + x4 + x2 + x + 1 x13 + x11 + x9 + x8 + x6 + x5 + x4 + x3 + 1

x5 + x3 x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1>>x13 + x11 + x9 + x8 + x7 + x6 + x5 + x4 + x3 + 1 x13  x 9  x8  x6  x5 x 11  x4  x3 11 7 6 x x x  x4  x3 x7  x6 1 Therefore, f(x) * g(x) mod m(x) = x7 + x6 + 1.

4.7 / FINITE FIELDS OF THE FORM GF(2n)

133

As with ordinary modular arithmetic, we have the notion of a set of residues in modular polynomial arithmetic. The set of residues modulo m(x), an nth-degree polynomial, consists of pn elements. Each of these elements is represented by one of the pn polynomials of degree m 6 n.

The residue class [x + 1], (mod m(x)), consists of all polynomials a(x) such that a(x) K (x + 1) (mod m(x)). Equivalently, the residue class [x + 1] consists of all polynomials a(x) that satisfy the equality a(x) mod m(x) = x + 1.

It can be shown that the set of all polynomials modulo an irreducible nth-degree polynomial m(x) satisfies the axioms in Figure 4.2, and thus forms a finite field. Furthermore, all finite fields of a given order are isomorphic; that is, any two finitefield structures of a given order have the same structure, but the representation or labels of the elements may be different.

To construct the finite field GF(23), we need to choose an irreducible polynomial of degree 3. There are only two such polynomials: (x3 + x2 + 1) and (x3 + x + 1). Using the latter, Table 4.7 shows the addition and multiplication tables for GF(23). Note that this set of tables has the identical structure to those of Table 4.6. Thus, we have succeeded in finding a way to define a field of order 23. We can now read additions and multiplications from the table easily. For example, consider binary 100 + 010 = 110. This is equivalent to x2 + x. Also consider 100 * 010 = 011, which is equivalent to x2 * x = x3 and reduces to x + 1.

Finding the Multiplicative Inverse Just as the Euclidean algorithm can be adapted to find the greatest common divisor of two polynomials, the extended Euclidean algorithm can be adapted to find the multiplicative inverse of a polynomial. Specifically, the algorithm will find the multiplicative inverse of b(x) modulo a(x) if the degree of b(x) is less than the degree of a(x) and gcd[a(x), b(x)] = 1. If a(x) is an irreducible polynomial, then it has no factor other than itself or 1, so that gcd[a(x), b(x)] = 1. The algorithm can be characterized in the same way as we did for the extended Euclidean algorithm for integers. Given polynomials a(x) and b(x) with the degree of a(x) greater than the degree of b(x), we wish to solve the following equation for the values v(x), w(x), and d(x), where d(x) = gcd[a(x), b(x)]: a(x)v(x) + b(x)w(x) = d(x) If d(x) = 1, then w(x) is the multiplicative inverse of b(x) modulo a(x).The calculations are as follows.

134 Table 4.7 Polynomial Arithmetic Modulo (x3 + x + 1) 000 0

001 1

010 x

011 x + 1

100

101

+

x2

x2 + 1

110 x2 + x

x2 + x + 1

000

0

0

1

x

x + 1

x2

x2 + 1

x2 + 1

x2 + x + 1

001

1

1

0

x + 1

x

x2 + 1

x2

x2 + x + 1

x2 + x

010

x

x

x + 1

0

1

x + x

x + x + 1

x

011

x + 1

x + 1

0

100

2

2

x + x 1

x + 1 x

x2 x + 1

x

101

+ 1

2

+ x

x

110 111

2

x 2

x

+ x + 1

x 2

x 2

+ 1

2

+ x

x x 2

x

+ x + 1

x

+ 1 x

2

x x

+ x + 1

2

x

2

x

+ x

+ x

+ x + 1

2

2

x 2

x

x

x2 + 1

2

+ x + 1 2

+ x

1

0

x + 1

x

2

+ 1

x

x + 1

0

1

x + 1

x

1

0

2

x x

+ 1

2

x + x + 1 0

1 2

2

111

2

x

2

2

2

(a) Addition

×

000 0

001 1

010 x

000

0

0

0

001

1

0

1

010

x

0

011

x + 1

0

100

x2

0

101

x + 1

0

x

110

x2 + x

0

x2 + x

111

x2 + x + 1

0

x2 + x + 1

2

011 x + 1

100

101

110

111

x2

x2 + 1

x2 + x

x2 + x + 1

0

0

0

x

x + 1

2

x

x2

x2 + x

x x + 1

x + 1

x2 + x x + 1

x2 + 1

x2 + x + 1

x2 + x + 1

1

2

x2 + x + 1

x 1

x2 + x x

x2 + 1

x

x2 + 1 1

x2 2

+ 1

(b) Multiplication

0 2

x

+ 1 1 x2 x

x

2

+ x + 1 x + 1 x2 + 1

0 x

2

+ x

x2 + x + 1 1 x2 + 1 x + 1 x x2

0 x

+ x + 1

2

x2 + 1 x 1 x

2

+ x

x2 x + 1

4.7 / FINITE FIELDS OF THE FORM GF(2n)

135

Extended Euclidean Algorithm for Polynomials Calculate r - 1(x) = a(x)

Which satisfies

r0(x) = b(x)

Calculate Which satisfies v - 1(x) = 1; w - 1(x) = 0 a(x) = a(x)v - 1(x) + bw - 1(x) v0(x) = 0; w0(x) = 1

b(x) = a(x)v0(x) + b(x)w0(x)

r1(x) = a(x) mod b(x) q1(x) = quotient of a(x)/b(x)

a(x) = q1(x)b(x) + r1(x)

v1(x) = v - 1(x) q1(x)v0(x) = 1 w1(x) = w - 1(x) q1(x)w0(x) = - q1(x)

r1(x) = a(x)v1(x) + b(x)w1(x)

r2(x) = b(x) mod r1(x) q2(x) = quotient of b(x)/r1(x)

b(x) = q2(x)r1(x) + r2(x)

v2(x) = v0(x) q2(x)v1(x) w2(x) = w0(x) q2(x)w1(x)

r2(x) = a(x)v2(x) + b(x)w2(x)

r3(x) = r1(x) mod r2(x) q3(x) = quotient of r1(x)/r2(x)

r1(x) = q3(x)r2(x) + r3(x)

v3(x) = v1(x) q3(x)v2(x) w3(x) = w1(x) q3(x)w2(x) • • •

r3(x) = a(x)v3(x) + b(x)w3(x)

vn(x) = vn - 2(x) qn(x)vn - 1(x) wn(x) = wn - 2(x) qn(x)wn - 1(x)

rn(x) = a(x)vn(x) + b(x)wn(x)

• • •

• • •

rn(x) = rn - 2(x) mod rn - 1(x) qn(x) = quotient of rn - 2(x)/rn - 3(x)

rn - 2(x) = qn(x)rn - 1(x) + rn(x)

rn + 1(x) = rn - 1(x) mod rn(x) = 0 qn + 1(x) = quotient of rn - 1(x)/rn - 2(x)

rn - 1(x) = qn + 1(x)rn(x) + 0

• • •

d(x) = gcd(a(x), b(x)) = rn(x) v(x) = vn(x); w(x) = wn(x)

Table 4.8 shows the calculation of the multiplicative inverse of (x7 + x + 1) mod (x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1). The result is that (x7 + x + 1) - 1 = (x7). That is, (x7 + x + 1)(x7) K 1( mod (x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1)).

Computational Considerations A polynomial f(x) in GF(2n) n-1

f(x) = an - 1xn - 1 + an - 2xn - 2 + Á + a1x + a0 = a aixi i=0

can be uniquely represented by the sequence of its n binary coefficients (an - 1, an - 2, Á , a0). Thus, every polynomial in GF(2n) can be represented by an n-bit number.

136

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

Tables 4.6 and 4.7 show the addition and multiplication tables for GF(23) modulo m(x) = (x3 + x + 1). Table 4.6 uses the binary representation, and Table 4.7 uses the polynomial representation.

ADDITION We have seen that addition of polynomials is performed by adding corresponding coefficients, and, in the case of polynomials over Z2, addition is just the XOR operation. So, addition of two polynomials in GF(2n) corresponds to a bitwise XOR operation. Consider the two polynomials in GF(28) from our earlier example: f(x) = x6 + x4 + x2 + x + 1 and g(x) = x7 + x + 1. (x6 + x4 + x2 + x + 1) + (x7 + x + 1) = x7 + x6 + x4 + x2 (polynomial notation) (01010111) 䊝 (10000011) = (11010100) (binary notation) {57} 䊝 {83} = {D4} (hexadecimal notation)10

MULTIPLICATION There is no simple XOR operation that will accomplish multiplication in GF(2n). However, a reasonably straightforward, easily implemented technique is available. We will discuss the technique with reference to GF(28) using m(x) = x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1, which is the finite field used in AES. The technique readily generalizes to GF(2n). The technique is based on the observation that x8 mod m(x) = [m(x) - x8] = (x4 + x3 + x + 1)

(4.12)

Table 4.8 Extended Euclid [(x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1), (x7 + x + 1)]

10

Initialization

a(x) = x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1; v - 1(x) = 1; w - 1(x) = 0 b(x) = x7 + x + 1; v0(x) = 0; w0(x) = 1

Iteration 1

q1(x) = x; r1(x) = x4 + x3 + x2 + 1 v1(x) = 1; w1(x) = x

Iteration 2

q2(x) = x3 + x2 + 1; r2(x) = x v2(x) = x3 + x2 + 1; w2(x) = x4 + x3 + x + 1

Iteration 3

q3(x) = x3 + x2 + x; r3(x) = 1 v3(x) = x6 + x2 + x + 1; w3(x) = x7

Iteration 4

q4(x) = x; r4(x) = 0 v4(x) = x7 + x + 1; w4(x) = x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1

Result

d(x) = r3(x) = gcd(a(x), b(x)) = 1 w(x) = w3(x) = (x7 + x + 1) - 1 mod (x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1) = x7

A basic refresher on number systems (decimal, binary, hexadecimal) can be found at the Computer Science Student Resource Site at WilliamStallings.com/StudentSupport.html. Here each of two groups of 4 bits in a byte is denoted by a single hexadecimal character, and the two characters are enclosed in brackets.

4.7 / FINITE FIELDS OF THE FORM GF(2n)

137

A moment’s thought should convince you that Equation (4.12) is true; if you are not sure, divide it out. In general, in GF(2n) with an nth-degree polynomial p(x), we have xn mod p(x) = [p(x) - xn]. Now, consider a polynomial in GF(28), which has the form f(x) = b7x7 + b6x6 + 5 b5x + b4x4 + b3x3 + b2x2 + b1x + b0. If we multiply by x, we have x * f(x) = (b7x8 + b6x7 + b5x6 + b4x5 + b3x4 + b2x3 + b1x2 + b0x) mod m(x)

(4.13)

If b7 = 0, then the result is a polynomial of degree less than 8, which is already in reduced form, and no further computation is necessary. If b7 = 1, then reduction modulo m(x) is achieved using Equation (4.12): x * f(x) = (b6x7 + b5x6 + b4x5 + b3x4 + b2x3 + b1x2 + b0x) + (x4 + x3 + x + 1) It follows that multiplication by x (i.e., 00000010) can be implemented as a 1-bit left shift followed by a conditional bitwise XOR with (00011011), which represents (x4 + x3 + x + 1). To summarize, x * f(x) = e

(b6b5b4b3b2b1b00) (b6b5b4b3b2b1b00) 䊝 (00011011)

if b7 = 0 if b7 = 1

(4.14)

Multiplication by a higher power of x can be achieved by repeated application of Equation (4.14). By adding intermediate results, multiplication by any constant in GF(28) can be achieved.

In an earlier example, we showed that for f(x) = x6 + x4 + x2 + x + 1, g(x) = x7 + x + 1, and m(x) = x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1, we have f(x) * g(x) mod m(x) = x7 + x6 + 1. Redoing this in binary arithmetic, we need to compute (01010111) * (10000011). First, we determine the results of multiplication by powers of x: (01010111) (01010111) (01010111) (01010111) (01010111) (01010111) (01010111)

* * * * * * *

(00000010) (00000100) (00001000) (00010000) (00100000) (01000000) (10000000)

= = = = = = =

(10101110) (01011100) 䊝 (00011011) = (01000111) (10001110) (00011100) 䊝 (00011011) = (00000111) (00001110) (00011100) (00111000)

So, (01010111) * (10000011) = (01010111) * [(00000001) 䊝 (00000010) 䊝 (10000000)] = (01010111) 䊝 (10101110) 䊝 (00111000) = (11000001) which is equivalent to x7 + x6 + 1.

138

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

Using a Generator An equivalent technique for defining a finite field of the form GF(2n), using the same irreducible polynomial, is sometimes more convenient. To begin, we need two definitions: A generator g of a finite field F of order q (contains q elements) is an element whose first q - 1 powers generate all the nonzero elements of F. That is, the elements of F consist of 0, g0, g1, Á , gq - 2 . Consider a field F defined by a polynomial f(x). An element b contained in F is called a root of the polynomial if f(b) = 0. Finally, it can be shown that a root g of an irreducible polynomial is a generator of the finite field defined on that polynomial.

Let us consider the finite field GF(23), defined over the irreducible polynomial x3 + x + 1 , discussed previously. Thus, the generator g must satisfy f(g) = g3 + g + 1 = 0. Keep in mind, as discussed previously, that we need not find a numerical solution to this equality. Rather, we deal with polynomial arithmetic in which arithmetic on the coefficients is performed modulo 2. Therefore, the solution to the preceding equality is g3 = -g - 1 = g + 1. We now show that g in fact generates all of the polynomials of degree less than 3. We have the following. g4 g5 g6 g7

= = = =

g(g3) g(g4) g(g5) g(g6)

= = = =

g(g + 1) = g2 + g g(g2 + g) = g3 + g2 = g2 + g + 1 g(g2 + g + 1) = g3 + g2 + g = g2 + g + g + 1 = g2 + 1 g(g2 + 1) = g3 + g = g + g + 1 = 1 = g0

We see that the powers of g generate all the nonzero polynomials in GF(23). Also, it should be clear that gk = gk mod7 for any integer k. Table 4.9 shows the power representation, as well as the polynomial and binary representations. (Continued)

Table 4.9 Generator for GF(23) using x3 + x + 1 Power Representation

Polynomial Representation

Binary Representation

Decimal (Hex) Representation

0 g0( = g7)

0 1

000 001

0 1

g1

g

010

2

2

2

g g + 1

100

4

011

3

g

g + g

110

6

g5

g2 + g + 1

111

7

g6

g2 + 1

101

5

g

3

g

4

2

4.7 / FINITE FIELDS OF THE FORM GF(2n)

139

(Continued)

This power representation makes multiplication easy. To multiply in the power notation, add exponents modulo 7. For example, g4 + g6 = g(10 mod7) = g3 = g + 1. The same result is achieved using polynomial arithmetic: We have g4 = g2 + g and g6 = g2 + 1. Then, (g2 + g) * (g2 + 1) = g4 + g3 + g2 + 1. Next, we need to determine (g4 + g3 + g2 + 1) mod(g3 + g + 1) by division: g + 1 g3 + g + 1>>g4 + g3 + g2 + g g4 + g2 + g 3 g g3 + g + 1 g + 1 We get a result of g + 1, which agrees with the result obtained using the power representation. Table 4.10 shows the addition and multiplication tables for GF(23) using the power representation. Note that this yields the identical results to the polynomial representation (Table 4.7) with some of the rows and columns interchanged.

n In general, for GF(2 ) with irreducible polynomial f(x), determine n n g = f(g) - g . Then calculate all of the powers of g from gn + 1 through g2 - 2. The 0 2n - 2 elements of the field correspond to the powers of g from g through g plus the value 0. For multiplication of two elements in the field, use the equality n gk = gk mod(2 - 1) for any integer k. n

Summary In this section, we have shown how to construct a finite field of order 2n. Specifically, we defined GF(2n) with the following properties. 1. GF(2n) consists of 2n elements. 2. The binary operations + and × are defined over the set. The operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division can be performed without leaving the set. Each element of the set other than 0 has a multiplicative inverse. We have shown that the elements of GF(2n) can be defined as the set of all polynomials of degree n - 1 or less with binary coefficients. Each such polynomial can be represented by a unique n-bit value. Arithmetic is defined as polynomial arithmetic modulo some irreducible polynomial of degree n. We have also seen that an equivalent definition of a finite field GF(2n) makes use of a generator and that arithmetic is defined using powers of the generator.

140 Table 4.10 GF(23) Arithmetic Using Generator for the Polynomial (x3 + x + 1)

000 001

000

001

010

100

011

110

111

101

+

0

1

G

g2

g3

g4

g5

g6

0

0

1

G

g2

g + 1

g2 + g

g2 + g + 1

g2 + 1

1

0

g + 1

g + 1

g

g + g + 1

g + g 0

1

2

g + g

g2

1

g

2

g + 1

g + g + 1

g

g + 1

1

g2 + 1

g2

g2 + g

2

2

010

g

g

g + 1

0

100 011

2

g g3

2

g g + 1

g + 1 g

g + g 1

g2 + g + 1

g + g + 1 0

110

g4

g2 + g

g2 + g + 1

g2

g

g2 + 1

0

1

g + 1

111

g

5

g + g + 1

g + g

g + 1

g + 1

g2

1

0

g

g

6

g + 1

g + g + 1

1

g + g

g + 1

g

0

011

110

111

101

101

2

2

2

2

2

g

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

(a) Addition

000

000

001

*

0

1

0

0

0

010

100

3

4

g6

G

2

5

g

g

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

g

g

001

1

0

1

G

g

g + 1

g + g

g + g + 1

g + 1

010

g

0

g

g2

g + 1

g2 + g

g2 + g + 1

g2 + 1

1

100

g2

0

g2

g + 1

g2 + g

g2 + g + 1

g2 + 1

1

g

011

3

g + 1

1

g

g2

2

110 111 101

2

0

g + 1

g + g

g + g + 1

g

4

0

g + g

g + g + 1

g + 1

1

g

g

5

0

g + g + 1

g + 1

1

g

2

0

g + 1

g

2

g

6

g

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

(b) Multiplication

2

g

2

g

2

g + 1

g

g + 1

g2 + g

g + 1

g + g

g + g + 1

2

2

4.9 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

141

4.8 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITE [HERS75], still in print, is the classic treatment of abstract algebra; it is readable and rigorous. [DESK92] is another good resource. [KNUT98] provides good coverage of polynomial arithmetic. One of the best treatments of the topics of this chapter is [BERL84], still in print. [GARR01] also has extensive coverage. A thorough and rigorous treatment of finite fields is [LIDL94]. Another solid treatment is [MURP00]. [HORO71] is a good overview of the topics of this chapter.

BERL84 Berlekamp, E. Algebraic Coding Theory. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1984. DESK92 Deskins, W. Abstract Algebra. New York: Dover, 1992. GARR01 Garrett, P. Making, Breaking Codes: An Introduction to Cryptology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. HERS75 Herstein, I. Topics in Algebra. New York: Wiley, 1975. HORO71 Horowitz, E. “Modular Arithmetic and Finite Field Theory: A Tutorial.” Proceedings of the Second ACM Symposium and Symbolic and Algebraic Manipulation, March 1971. KNUT98 Knuth, D. The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminumerical Algorithms. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1998. LIDL94 Lidl, R. and Niederreiter, H. Introduction to Finite Fields and Their Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. MURP00 Murphy, T. Finite Fields. University of Dublin, Trinity College, School of Mathematics. 2000. Document available at this book’s Web site.

Recommended Web Site: • PascGalois Project: Contains a clever set of examples and projects to aid in giving students a visual understanding of key concepts in abstract algebra.

4.9 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms abelian group associative coefficient set

commutative commutative ring cyclic group

divisor Euclidean algorithm field

142

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

finite field finite group finite ring generator greatest common divisor group identity element infinite field infinite group

infinite ring integral domain inverse element irreducible polynomial modular arithmetic modular polynomial arithmetic modulo operator modulus monic polynomial

order polynomial polynomial arithmetic polynomial ring prime number prime polynomial relatively prime residue ring

Review Questions 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

Briefly define a group. Briefly define a ring. Briefly define a field. What does it mean to say that b is a divisor of a? What is the difference between modular arithmetic and ordinary arithmetic? List three classes of polynomial arithmetic.

Problems 4.1

4.2

4.3

For the group Sn of all permutations of n distinct symbols, a. what is the number of elements in Sn? b. show that Sn is not abelian for n 7 2. Does the set of residue classes (mod3) form a group a. with respect to modular addition? b. with respect to modular multiplication? Consider the set S = {a, b} with addition and multiplication defined by the following tables. + a b

4.4 4.5 4.6

4.7

a a b

b b a

* a b

a a a

b a b

Is S a ring? Justify your answer. Reformulate Equation (4.1), removing the restriction that a is a nonnegative integer. That is, let a be any integer. Draw a figure similar to Figure 4.1 for a 6 0. For each of the following equations, find an integer x that satisfies the equation. a. 5x K 4 (mod 3) b. 7x K 6 (mod 5) c. 9x K 8 (mod 7) In this text, we assume that the modulus is a positive integer. But the definition of the expression a mod n also makes perfect sense if n is negative. Determine the following: a. 5 mod 3 b. 5 mod -3 c. -5 mod 3 d. -5 mod -3

4.9 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS 4.8

4.9

4.10 4.11

4.12

4.13 4.14

4.15 4.16

A modulus of 0 does not fit the definition but is defined by convention as follows: a mod 0 = a. With this definition in mind, what does the following expression mean: a K b (mod 0)? In Section 4.3, we define the congruence relationship as follows: Two integers a and b are said to be congruent modulo n if (a mod n) = (b mod n). We then proved that a K b (mod n) if n ƒ (a - b). Some texts on number theory use this latter relationship as the definition of congruence: Two integers a and b are said to be congruent modulo n if n ƒ (a - b). Using this latter definition as the starting point, prove that, if (a mod n) = (b mod n), then n divides (a - b). What is the smallest positive integer that has exactly k divisors, for 1 … k … 6? Prove the following: a. a K b (mod n) implies b K a (mod n) b. a K b (mod n) and b K c (mod n) imply a K c (mod n) Prove the following: a. [(a mod n) - (b mod n)] mod n = (a - b) mod n b. [(a mod n) * (b mod n)] mod n = (a * b) mod n Find the multiplicative inverse of each nonzero element in Z5. Show that an integer N is congruent modulo 9 to the sum of its decimal digits. For example, 475 K 4 + 7 + 5 K 16 K 1 + 6 K 7 ( mod 9 ). This is the basis for the familiar procedure of “casting out 9’s” when checking computations in arithmetic. a. Determine gcd(24140, 16762). b. Determine gcd(4655, 12075). The purpose of this problem is to set an upper bound on the number of iterations of the Euclidean algorithm. a. Suppose that m = qn + r with q 7 0 and 0 … r 6 n. Show that m/2 7 r. b. Let Ai be the value of A in the Euclidean algorithm after the ith iteration. Show that Ai 2 c. Show that if m, n, and N are integers with (1 … m, n, … 2 N), then the Euclidean algorithm takes at most 2N steps to find gcd(m, n). The Euclidean algorithm has been known for over 2000 years and has always been a favorite among number theorists. After these many years, there is now a potential competitor, invented by J. Stein in 1961. Stein’s algorithms is as follows. Determine gcd(A, B) with A, B Ú 1. STEP 1 Set A1 = A, B1 = B, C1 = 1 STEP 2 n (1) If An = Bn stop. gcd(A, B) = AnCn (2) If An and Bn are both even, set An + 1 = An/2, Bn + 1 = Bn/2, Cn + 1 = 2Cn (3) If An is even and Bn is odd, set An + 1 = An/2, Bn + 1 = Bn, Cn + 1 = Cn (4) If An is odd and Bn is even, set An + 1 = An, Bn + 1 = Bn/2, Cn + 1 = Cn (5) If An and Bn are both odd, set An + 1 = ƒ An - Bn |, Bn + 1 = min (Bn, An), Cn + 1 = Cn Continue to step n + 1. a. To get a feel for the two algorithms, compute gcd(2152, 764) using both the Euclidean and Stein’s algorithm. b. What is the apparent advantage of Stein’s algorithm over the Euclidean algorithm? a. Show that if Stein’s algorithm does not stop before the nth step, then Ai + 2 6

4.17

4.18

143

Cn + 1 * gcd(An + 1, Bn + 1) = Cn * gcd(An, Bn) b. Show that if the algorithm does not stop before step (n - 1), then An + 2Bn + 2 …

AnBn 2

144

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

4.19

4.20 4.21 4.22

4.23

4.24

4.25

4.26 4.27 4.28

c. Show that if 1 … A, B … 2 N, then Stein’s algorithm takes at most 4N steps to find gcd(m, n). Thus, Stein’s algorithm works in roughly the same number of steps as the Euclidean algorithm. d. Demonstrate that Stein’s algorithm does indeed return gcd(A, B). Using the extended Euclidean algorithm, find the multiplicative inverse of a. 1234 mod 4321 b. 24140 mod 40902 c. 550 mod 1769 Develop a set of tables similar to Table 4.5 for GF(5). Demonstrate that the set of polynomials whose coefficients form a field is a ring. Demonstrate whether each of these statements is true or false for polynomials over a field. a. The product of monic polynomials is monic. b. The product of polynomials of degrees m and n has degree m + n. c. The sum of polynomials of degrees m and n has degree max [m, n]. For polynomial arithmetic with coefficients in Z 10 , perform the following calculations. a. (7x + 2) - (x2 + 5) b. (6x2 + x + 3) * (5x2 + 2) Determine which of the following are reducible over GF(2). a. x 3 + 1 b. x3 + x2 + 1 c. x4 + 1 (be careful) Determine the gcd of the following pairs of polynomials. a. x3 + x + 1 and x2 + x + 1 over GF(2) b. x 3 - x + 1 and x2 + 1 over GF(3) c. x5 + x4 + x3 - x2 - x + 1 and x3 + x2 + x + 1 over GF(3) d. x 5 + 88x4 + 73x3 + 83x2 + 51x + 67 and x3 + 97x2 + 40x + 38 over GF(101) Develop a set of tables similar to Table 4.7 for GF(4) with m(x) = x2 + x + 1. Determine the multiplicative inverse of x 3 + x + 1 in GF(2 4) with m(x) = x4 + x + 1. Develop a table similar to Table 4.9 for GF(2 4) with m(x) = x4 + x + 1.

Programming Problems 4.29 4.30

Write a simple four-function calculator in GF(2 4). You may use table lookups for the multiplicative inverses. Write a simple four-function calculator in GF(2 8). You should compute the multiplicative inverses on the fly.

APPENDIX 4A

THE MEANING OF MOD

The operator mod is used in this book and in the literature in two different ways: as a binary operator and as a congruence relation. This appendix explains the distinction and precisely defines the notation used in this book regarding parentheses. This notation is common but, unfortunately, not universal.

APPENDIX 4A / THE MEANING OF MOD

145

The Binary Operator mod If a is an integer and n is a nonzero integer, we define a mod n to be the remainder when a is divided by n. The integer n is called the modulus, and the remainder is called the residue. Thus, for any integer a, we can always write a = :a/n; * n + (a mod n) Formally, we define the operator mod as a mod n = a - :a/n; * n

for n Z 0

As a binary operation, mod takes two integer arguments and returns the remainder. For example, 7 mod 3 = 1 . The arguments may be integers, integer variables, or integer variable expressions. For example, all of the following are valid, with the obvious meanings: 7 mod 3 7 mod m x mod 3 x mod m (x2 + y + 1) mod (2m + n) where all of the variables are integers. In each case, the left-hand term is divided by the right-hand term, and the resulting value is the remainder. Note that if either the left- or right-hand argument is an expression, the expression is parenthesized. The operator mod is not inside parentheses. In fact, the mod operation also works if the two arguments are arbitrary real numbers, not just integers. In this book, we are concerned only with the integer operation.

The Congruence Relation mod As a congruence relation, mod expresses that two arguments have the same remainder with respect to a given modulus. For example, 7 K 4 (mod 3) expresses the fact that both 7 and 4 have a remainder of 1 when divided by 3. The following two expressions are equivalent: a K b (mod m)

3

a mod m = b mod m

Another way of expressing it is to say that the expression a K b (mod m) is the same as saying that a - b is an integral multiple of m. Again, all the arguments may be integers, integer variables, or integer variable expressions. For example, all of the following are valid, with the obvious meanings: 7 K 4 (mod 3) x K y (mod m) (x 2 + y + 1) K (a + 1) (mod [m + n])

146

CHAPTER 4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

where all of the variables are integers. Two conventions are used. The congruence sign is K .The modulus for the relation is defined by placing the mod operator followed by the modulus in parentheses. The congruence relation is used to define residue classes. Those numbers that have the same remainder r when divided by m form a residue class (mod m). There are m residue classes (mod m). For a given remainder r, the residue class to which it belongs consists of the numbers r, r ; m, r ; 2m, Á According to our definition, the congruence a K b (mod m) signifies that the numbers a and b differ by a multiple of m. Consequently, the congruence can also be expressed in the terms that a and b belong to the same residue class ( mod m).

CHAPTER

ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD 5.1

Finite Field Arithmetic

5.2

AES Structure General Structure Detailed Structure

5.3

AES Transformation Functions Substitute Bytes Transformation ShiftRows Transformation MixColumns Transformation AddRoundKey Transformation

5.4

AES Key Expansion Key Expansion Algorithm Rationale

5.5

An AES Example Results Avalanche Effect

5.6

AES Implementation Equivalent Inverse Cipher Implementation Aspects

5.7

Recommended Reading and Web Sites

5.8

Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

Appendix 5A Polynomials With Coefficients In GF(2 8 ) Appendix 5B Simplified AES

147

148

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

“It seems very simple.” “It is very simple. But if you don’t know what the key is it’s virtually indecipherable.” —Talking to Strange Men, Ruth Rendell

KEY POINTS ◆ ◆

AES is a block cipher intended to replace DES for commercial applications. It uses a 128-bit block size and a key size of 128, 192, or 256 bits. AES does not use a Feistel structure. Instead, each full round consists of four separate functions: byte substitution, permutation, arithmetic operations over a finite field, and XOR with a key.

The Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) was published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in 2001. AES is a symmetric block cipher that is intended to replace DES as the approved standard for a wide range of applications. Compared to public-key ciphers such as RSA, the structure of AES and most symmetric ciphers is quite complex and cannot be explained as easily as many other cryptographic algorithms. Accordingly, the reader may wish to begin with a simplified version of AES, which is described in Appendix 5B. This version allows the reader to perform encryption and decryption by hand and gain a good understanding of the working of the algorithm details. Classroom experience indicates that a study of this simplified version enhances understanding of AES.1 One possible approach is to read the chapter first, then carefully read Appendix 5B, and then re-read the main body of the chapter. Appendix H looks at the evaluation criteria used by NIST to select from among the candidates for AES, plus the rationale for picking Rijndael, which was the winning candidate. This material is useful in understanding not just the AES design but the criteria by which to judge any symmetric encryption algorithm.

5.1 FINITE FIELD ARITHMETIC In AES, all operations are performed on 8-bit bytes. In particular, the arithmetic operations of addition, multiplication, and division are performed over the finite field GF(28). Section 4.7 discusses such operations in some detail. For the reader who has not studied Chapter 4, and as a quick review for those who have, this section summarizes the important concepts. In essence, a field is a set in which we can do addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division without leaving the set. Division is defined with the following

1

However, you may safely skip Appendix 5B, at least on a first reading. If you get lost or bogged down in the details of AES, then you can go back and start with simplified AES.

5.1 / FINITE FIELD ARITHMETIC

149

rule: a/b = a(b - 1). An example of a finite field (one with a finite number of elements) is the set Zp consisting of all the integers {0, 1, Á , p - 1}, where p is a prime number and in which arithmetic is carried out modulo p. Virtually all encryption algorithms, both conventional and public-key, involve arithmetic operations on integers. If one of the operations used in the algorithm is division, then we need to work in arithmetic defined over a field; this is because division requires that each nonzero element have a multiplicative inverse. For convenience and for implementation efficiency, we would also like to work with integers that fit exactly into a given number of bits, with no wasted bit patterns. That is, we wish to work with integers in the range 0 through 2n - 1, which fit into an n-bit word. Unfortunately, the set of such integers, Z 2n, using modular arithmetic, is not a field. For example, the integer 2 has no multiplicative inverse in Z2n, that is, there is no integer b, such that 2b mod 2n = 1. There is a way of defining a finite field containing 2n elements; such a field is referred to as GF(2n). Consider the set, S, of all polynomials of degree n - 1 or less with binary coefficients. Thus, each polynomial has the form n-1

f(x) = an - 1xn - 1 + an - 2xn - 2 + Á + a1x + a0 = a aixi i=0

where each ai takes on the value 0 or 1. There are a total of 2n different polynomials in S. For n = 3, the 23 = 8 polynomials in the set are 0 1

x x + 1

x2 x2 + 1

x2 + x x2 + x + 1

With the appropriate definition of arithmetic operations, each such set S is a finite field. The definition consists of the following elements. 1. Arithmetic follows the ordinary rules of polynomial arithmetic using the basic rules of algebra with the following two refinements. 2. Arithmetic on the coefficients is performed modulo 2. This is the same as the XOR operation. 3. If multiplication results in a polynomial of degree greater than n - 1, then the polynomial is reduced modulo some irreducible polynomial m(x) of degree n. That is, we divide by m(x) and keep the remainder. For a polynomial f(x), the remainder is expressed as r(x) = f(x) mod m(x). A polynomial m(x) is called irreducible if and only if m(x) cannot be expressed as a product of two polynomials, both of degree lower than that of m(x). For example, to construct the finite field GF(23), we need to choose an irreducible polynomial of degree 3. There are only two such polynomials: (x3 + x2 + 1) and (x3 + x + 1). Addition is equivalent to taking the XOR of like terms. Thus, (x + 1) + x = 1. A polynomial in GF(2n) can be uniquely represented by its n binary coefficients (an - 1an - 2 Á a0).Therefore, every polynomial in GF(2n) can be represented by an n-bit number. Addition is performed by taking the bitwise XOR of the two n-bit elements. There is no simple XOR operation that will accomplish multiplication in

150

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

GF(2n). However, a reasonably straightforward, easily implemented, technique is available. In essence, it can be shown that multiplication of a number in GF(2n) by 2 consists of a left shift followed by a conditional XOR with a constant. Multiplication by larger numbers can be achieved by repeated application of this rule. For example, AES uses arithmetic in the finite field GF(28) with the irreducible polynomial m(x) = x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1. Consider two elements A = (a7a6 Á a1a0) and B = (b7b6 Á b1b0). The sum A + B = (c7c6 Á c1c0), where ci = ai 䊝 bi. The multiplication {02} A equals (a6 Á a1a00) if a7 = 0 and equals (a6 Á a1a00) 䊝 (00011011) if a7 = 1. To summarize, AES operates on 8-bit bytes. Addition of two bytes is defined as the bitwise XOR operation. Multiplication of two bytes is defined as multiplication in the finite field GF(28), with the irreducible polynomial2 m(x) = x8 + x4 + x3 + x + 1. The developers of Rijndael give as their motivation for selecting this one of the 30 possible irreducible polynomials of degree 8 that it is the first one on the list given in [LIDL94].

#

5.2 AES STRUCTURE General Structure Figure 5.1 shows the overall structure of the AES encryption process. The cipher takes a plaintext block size of 128 bits, or 16 bytes. The key length can be 16, 24, or 32 bytes (128, 192, or 256 bits). The algorithm is referred to as AES-128, AES-192, or AES-256, depending on the key length. The input to the encryption and decryption algorithms is a single 128-bit block. In FIPS PUB 197, this block is depicted as a 4 * 4 square matrix of bytes. This block is copied into the State array, which is modified at each stage of encryption or decryption. After the final stage, State is copied to an output matrix. These operations are depicted in Figure 5.2a. Similarly, the key is depicted as a square matrix of bytes. This key is then expanded into an array of key schedule words. Figure 5.2b shows the expansion for the 128-bit key. Each word is four bytes, and the total key schedule is 44 words for the 128-bit key. Note that the ordering of bytes within a matrix is by column. So, for example, the first four bytes of a 128-bit plaintext input to the encryption cipher occupy the first column of the in matrix, the second four bytes occupy the second column, and so on. Similarly, the first four bytes of the expanded key, which form a word, occupy the first column of the w matrix. The cipher consists of N rounds, where the number of rounds depends on the key length: 10 rounds for a 16-byte key, 12 rounds for a 24-byte key, and 14 rounds for a 32-byte key (Table 5.1). The first N - 1 rounds consist of four distinct transformation functions: SubBytes, ShiftRows, MixColumns, and AddRoundKey, which are described subsequently. The final round contains only three transformations, and there is a initial single transformation (AddRoundKey) before the first round,

2

In the remainder of this discussion, references to GF(28) refer to the finite field defined with this polynomial.

5.2 / AES STRUCTURE Plaintext—16 bytes (128 bits)

Input state (16 bytes)

151

Key—M bytes

Round 0 key (16 bytes)

Key (M bytes)

Initial transformation

Round 1 (4 transformations)

Round 1 key (16 bytes)

Round 1 output state (16 bytes)

Round N – 1 (4 transformations)

Key expansion

State after initial transformation (16 bytes)

Round N – 1 key (16 bytes)

Round N – 1 output state (16 bytes) Round N (3 transformations)

Round N key (16 bytes)

Final state (16 bytes)

Cipehertext—16 bytes (128 bits)

Figure 5.1

No. of rounds

Key Length (bytes)

10

16

12

24

14

32

AES Encryption Process

which can be considered Round 0. Each transformation takes one or more 4 * 4 matrices as input and produces a 4 * 4 matrix as output. Figure 5.1 shows that the output of each round is a 4 * 4 matrix, with the output of the final round being the ciphertext. Also, the key expansion function generates N + 1 round keys, each of which is a distinct 4 * 4 matrix. Each round key serve as one of the inputs to the AddRoundKey transformation in each round.

152 in0

in4

in8

in12

s0,0

s0,1

s0,2

s0,3

s0,0

s0,1

s0,2

s0,3

out0

out4

out8 out12

in1

in5

in9

in13

s1,0

s1,1

s1,2

s1,3

s1,0

s1,1

s1,2

s1,3

out1

out5

out9 out13

in2

in6

in10

in14

s2,0

s2,1

s2,2

s2,3

s2,0

s2,1

s2,2

s2,3

out2

out6 out10 out14

in3

in7

in11

in15

s3,0

s3,1

s3,2

s3,3

s3,0

s3,1

s3,2

s3,3

out3

out7 out11 out15

(a) Input, state array, and output k0

k4

k8

k12

k1

k5

k9

k13

k2

k6

k10

k14

k3

k7

k11

k15

w0

w1

w2

• • •

(b) Key and expanded key Figure 5.2

AES Data Structures

w42

w43

5.2 / AES STRUCTURE

153

Table 5.1 AES Parameters Key Size (words/bytes/bits)

4/16/128

6/24/192

8/32/256

Plaintext Block Size (words/bytes/bits)

4/16/128

4/16/128

4/16/128

Number of Rounds Round Key Size (words/bytes/bits)

10 4/16/128

12 4/16/128

14 4/16/128

Expanded Key Size (words/bytes)

44/176

52/208

60/240

Detailed Structure Figure 5.3 shows the AES cipher in more detail, indicating the sequence of transformations in each round and showing the corresponding decryption function. As was done in Chapter 3, we show encryption proceeding down the page and decryption proceeding up the page. Before delving into details, we can make several comments about the overall AES structure. 1. One noteworthy feature of this structure is that it is not a Feistel structure. Recall that, in the classic Feistel structure, half of the data block is used to modify the other half of the data block and then the halves are swapped. AES instead processes the entire data block as a single matrix during each round using substitutions and permutation. 2. The key that is provided as input is expanded into an array of forty-four 32-bit words, w[i]. Four distinct words (128 bits) serve as a round key for each round; these are indicated in Figure 5.3. 3. Four different stages are used, one of permutation and three of substitution: • Substitute bytes: Uses an S-box to perform a byte-by-byte substitution of the block • ShiftRows: A simple permutation • MixColumns: A substitution that makes use of arithmetic over GF(28) • AddRoundKey: A simple bitwise XOR of the current block with a portion of the expanded key 4. The structure is quite simple. For both encryption and decryption, the cipher begins with an AddRoundKey stage, followed by nine rounds that each includes all four stages, followed by a tenth round of three stages. Figure 5.4 depicts the structure of a full encryption round. 5. Only the AddRoundKey stage makes use of the key. For this reason, the cipher begins and ends with an AddRoundKey stage. Any other stage, applied at the beginning or end, is reversible without knowledge of the key and so would add no security. 6. The AddRoundKey stage is, in effect, a form of Vernam cipher and by itself would not be formidable. The other three stages together provide confusion, diffusion, and nonlinearity, but by themselves would provide no security because they do not use the key.We can view the cipher as alternating operations of XOR

Key (16 bytes) Expand key

Plaintext (16 bytes)

Add round key

w[0, 3]

Add round key

Substitute bytes

Inverse sub bytes

Shift rows

Inverse shift rows

Mix columns

Inverse mix cols w[4, 7]

Inverse sub bytes

• • •

Inverse shift rows

Substitute bytes

Round 9

Add round key

Shift rows

• • •

Mix columns

Inverse mix cols

Add round key

w[36, 39]

Add round key

Substitute bytes

Inverse sub bytes

Shift rows

Inverse shift rows

Add round key

w[40, 43]

Add round key

Ciphertext (16 bytes)

Ciphertext (16 bytes)

(a) Encryption

(b) Decryption

Figure 5.3

Round 9

Add round key

Round 10

Plaintext (16 bytes)

Round 1

Round 1

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

Round 10

154

AES Encryption and Decryption

encryption (AddRoundKey) of a block, followed by scrambling of the block (the other three stages), followed by XOR encryption, and so on. This scheme is both efficient and highly secure. 7. Each stage is easily reversible. For the Substitute Byte, ShiftRows, and MixColumns stages, an inverse function is used in the decryption algorithm. For the AddRoundKey stage, the inverse is achieved by XORing the same round key to the block, using the result that A 䊝 B 䊝 B = A. 8. As with most block ciphers, the decryption algorithm makes use of the expanded key in reverse order. However, the decryption algorithm is not

5.3 / AES TRANSFORMATION FUNCTIONS

155

State

S

SubBytes

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

S

State

ShiftRows

State

MixColumns

M

M

M

M

State r0

r1

r2

r3

r4

r5

r6

r7

r8

r9

r10

r11

r12

r13

r14

r15

AddRoundKey

State

Figure 5.4

AES Encryption Round

identical to the encryption algorithm. This is a consequence of the particular structure of AES. 9. Once it is established that all four stages are reversible, it is easy to verify that decryption does recover the plaintext. Figure 5.3 lays out encryption and decryption going in opposite vertical directions. At each horizontal point (e.g., the dashed line in the figure), State is the same for both encryption and decryption. 10. The final round of both encryption and decryption consists of only three stages. Again, this is a consequence of the particular structure of AES and is required to make the cipher reversible.

5.3 AES TRANSFORMATION FUNCTIONS We now turn to a discussion of each of the four transformations used in AES. For each stage, we describe the forward (encryption) algorithm, the inverse (decryption) algorithm, and the rationale for the stage.

156

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

Substitute Bytes Transformation F ORWARD AND I NVERSE T RANSFORMATIONS The forward substitute byte transformation, called SubBytes, is a simple table lookup (Figure 5.5a). AES defines a 16 * 16 matrix of byte values, called an S-box (Table 5.2a), that contains a permutation of all possible 256 8-bit values. Each individual byte of State is mapped into a new byte in the following way: The leftmost 4 bits of the byte are used as a row value and the rightmost 4 bits are used as a column value. These row and column values serve as indexes into the S-box to select a unique 8-bit output value. For example, the hexadecimal value3 {95} references row 9, column 5

y

x

s0,0 s0,1 s0,2 s0,3 s1,0

s'0,0 s'0,1 s'0,2 s'0,3

S-box

s1,1 s 1,2 s1,3

s'1,0

s'1,1 s' s' 1,2 1,3

s2,0 s2,1 s2,2 s2,3

s'2,0 s'2,1 s'2,2 s'2,3

s3,0 s3,1 s3,2 s3,3

s'3,0 s'3,1 s'3,2 s'3,3 (a) Substitute byte transformation

s0,0 s1,0 s2,0 s3,0

s0,1 s1,1 s2,1 s3,1

s'0,0

s0,2 s0,3 s1,2 s1,3

wi

wi+1

wi+2 wi+3

s2,2 s2,3

=

s'1,0 s'2,0 s'3,0

s3,2 s3,3

s'0,1 ' s0,2 s'0,3 ' s1,1 ' s1,2 s'1,3 ' s2,1 ' s2,2 s'2,3 s'3,1 ' s3,2 s'3,3

(b) Add round key transformation Figure 5.5

3

AES Byte-Level Operations

In FIPS PUB 197, a hexadecimal number is indicated by enclosing it in curly brackets. We use that convention in this chapter.

5.3 / AES TRANSFORMATION FUNCTIONS

157

Table 5.2 AES S-Boxes y

x

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

63

7C

77

1

CA

82

C9

2

B7

FD

93

3

04

C7

23

4

09

83

2C

1A

5

53

D1

00

ED

6

D0

EF

AA

FB

7

51

A3

40

8

CD

0C

13

9

60

81

4F

DC

A

E0

32

3A

0A

49

06

B

E7

C8

37

6D

8D

D5

8

9

A

B

C

D

E

7B

F2

6B

6F

C5

30

01

7D

FA

59

47

F0

AD

D4

67

2B

A2

AF

26

36

3F

F7

CC

34

A5

E5

C3

18

96

05

9A

07

12

80

1B

6E

5A

A0

52

3B

D6

20

FC

B1

5B

6A

CB

BE

43

4D

33

85

45

F9

02

8F

92

9D

38

F5

BC

B6

EC

5F

97

44

17

C4

A7

22

2A

90

88

46

24

5C

4E

A9

F

FE

D7

AB

76

9C

A4

72

C0

F1

71

D8

31

15

E2

EB

27

B2

75

B3

29

E3

2F

84

39

4A

4C

58

CF

7F

50

3C

9F

A8

DA

21

10

FF

F3

D2

7E

3D

64

5D

19

73

EE

B8

14

DE

5E

0B

DB

C2

D3

AC

62

91

95

E4

79

6C

56

F4

EA

65

7A

AE

08 8A

C

BA

78

25

2E

1C

A6

B4

C6

E8

DD

74

1F

4B

BD

8B

D

70

3E

B5

66

48

03

F6

0E

61

35

57

B9

86

C1

1D

9E

E

E1

F8

98

11

69

D9

8E

94

9B

1E

87

E9

CE

55

28

DF

F

8C

A1

89

0D

BF

E6

42

68

41

99

2D

0F

B0

54

BB

16

9

A

B

C

D

E

F

(a) S-box

y 0

x

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

52

09

6A

D5

30

36

A5

38

BF

40

A3

9E

81

F3

D7

FB

1

7C

E3

39

82

9B

2F

FF

87

34

8E

43

44

C4

DE

E9

CB

2

54

7B

94

32

A6

C2

23

3D

EE

4C

95

0B

42

FA

C3

4E

3

08

2E

A1

66

28

D9

24

B2

76

5B

A2

49

6D

8B

D1

25

4

72

F8

F6

64

86

68

98

16

D4

A4

5C

CC

5D

65

B6

92

5

6C

70

48

50

FD

ED

B9

DA

5E

15

46

57

A7

8D

9D

84

6

90

D8

AB

00

8C

BC

D3

0A

F7

E4

58

05

B8

B3

45

06

7

D0

2C

1E

8F

CA

3F

0F

02

C1

AF

BD

03

01

13

8A

6B

8

3A

91

11

41

4F

67

DC

EA

97

F2

CF

CE

F0

B4

E6

73

9

96

AC

74

22

E7

AD

35

85

E2

F9

37

E8

1C

75

DF

6E

A

47

F1

1A

71

1D

29

C5

89

6F

B7

62

0E

AA

18

BE

1B

B

FC

56

3E

4B

C6

D2

79

20

9A

DB

C0

FE

78

CD

5A

F4

C

1F

DD

A8

33

88

07

C7

31

B1

12

10

59

27

80

EC

5F EF

D

60

51

7F

A9

19

B5

4A

0D

2D

E5

7A

9F

93

C9

9C

E

A0

E0

3B

4D

AE

2A

F5

B0

C8

EB

BB

3C

83

53

99

61

F

17

2B

04

7E

BA

77

D6

26

E1

69

14

63

55

21

0C

7D

(b) Inverse S-box

158

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

of the S-box, which contains the value {2A}. Accordingly, the value {95} is mapped into the value {2A}. Here is an example of the SubBytes transformation: EA 83 5C F0

04 45 33 2D

65 5D 98 AD

85 96 B0 C5

:

87 EC 4A 8C

F2 6E C3 D8

4D 4C 46 95

97 90 E7 A6

The S-box is constructed in the following fashion (Figure 5.6a).

Byte at row y, column x initialized to yx

Byte at row y, column x initialized to yx

yx

Inverse in GF(28)

Byte to bit column vector

b′0 b1′

Byte to bit column vector

b′2 b′0 b1′ b′2 b3′ b′4 b′5 b′6 b′7

1 1 1 1 = 1 0 0 0

0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1

yx

1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1

1 b0 1 b1 0 b2 0 b3 + 0 b4 1 b5 1 b6 0 b7

b3′ b′4 b′5 b′6 b′7

0 1 0 1 = 0 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

1 b0 0 b1 1 b2 0 b3 + 0 b4 0 b5 0 b6 0 b7

Bit column vector to byte

Bit column vector to byte

Inverse in GF(28)

S(yx)

IS(yx)

(a) Calculation of byte at row y, column x of S-box

(a) Calculation of byte at row y, column x of IS-box

Figure 5.6

Constuction of S-Box and IS-Box

5.3 / AES TRANSFORMATION FUNCTIONS

159

1. Initialize the S-box with the byte values in ascending sequence row by row. The first row contains {00}, {01}, {02}, Á , {0F}; the second row contains {10}, {11}, etc.; and so on. Thus, the value of the byte at row y, column x is {yx}. 2. Map each byte in the S-box to its multiplicative inverse in the finite field GF(28); the value {00} is mapped to itself. 3. Consider that each byte in the S-box consists of 8 bits labeled (b7, b6, b5, b4, b3, b2, b1, b0). Apply the following transformation to each bit of each byte in the S-box: b¿i = bi 䊝 b(i + 4) mod 8 䊝 b(i + 5) mod 8 䊝 b(i + 6) mod 8 䊝 b(i + 7) mod 8 䊝 ci

(5.1)

where ci is the ith bit of byte c with the value {63}; that is, (c7c6c5c4c3c2c1c0) = (01100011). The prime (¿) indicates that the variable is to be updated by the value on the right. The AES standard depicts this transformation in matrix form as follows. b¿0 1 b1¿ 1 b2¿ 1 b3¿ 1 H X = H b4¿ 1 b5¿ 0 b6¿ 0 b7¿ 0

0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

1 b0 1 1 b1 1 1 b2 0 1 b3 0 X H X + H X 0 b4 0 0 b5 1 0 b6 1 1 b7 0

(5.2)

Equation (5.2) has to be interpreted carefully. In ordinary matrix multiplication,4 each element in the product matrix is the sum of products of the elements of one row and one column. In this case, each element in the product matrix is the bitwise XOR of products of elements of one row and one column. Furthermore, the final addition shown in Equation (5.2) is a bitwise XOR. Recall from Section 4.7 that the bitwise XOR is addition in GF(28). As an example, consider the input value {95}. The multiplicative inverse in GF(28) is {95} - 1 = {8A}, which is 10001010 in binary. Using Equation (5.2), 1 1 1 1 H 1 0 0 0 4

0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 X H X䊝H X = H X䊝H X = H X 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

For a brief review of the rules of matrix and vector multiplication, refer to Appendix E.

160

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

The result is {2A}, which should appear in row {09} column {05} of the S-box. This is verified by checking Table 5.2a. The inverse substitute byte transformation, called InvSubBytes, makes use of the inverse S-box shown in Table 5.2b. Note, for example, that the input {2A} produces the output {95} , and the input {95} to the S-box produces {2A} . The inverse S-box is constructed (Figure 5.6b) by applying the inverse of the transformation in Equation (5.1) followed by taking the multiplicative inverse in GF(28). The inverse transformation is b¿i = b(i + 2) mod 8 䊝 b(i + 5) mod 8 䊝 b(i + 7) mod 8 䊝 di where byte d = {05}, or 00000101. We can depict this transformation as follows. b0¿ 0 b1¿ 1 b2¿ 0 b3¿ 1 H X = H b4¿ 0 b5¿ 0 b6¿ 1 b7¿ 0

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

1 b0 1 0 b1 0 1 b2 1 0 b3 0 X H X + H X 0 b4 0 1 b5 0 0 b6 0 0 b7 0

To see that InvSubBytes is the inverse of SubBytes, label the matrices in SubBytes and InvSubBytes as X and B, respectively, and the vector versions of constants c and d as C and D, respectively. For some 8-bit vector B, Equation (5.2) becomes B¿ = XB 䊝 C. We need to show that Y(XB 䊝 C) 䊝 D = B. To multiply out, we must show YXB 䊝 YC 䊝 D = B. This becomes 0 1 0 1 H 0 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 H 0 0 1 0

1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 X H 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1

1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1

0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1

1 b0 1 b1 1 b2 1 b3 XH X 䊝 0 b4 0 b5 0 b6 1 b7

1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 X H X䊝H X = 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

5.3 / AES TRANSFORMATION FUNCTIONS

1 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

161

1 1 b0 b0 0 0 0 b1 b1 0 b2 1 1 b2 0 b 0 0 b 0 X H 3X 䊝 H X 䊝 H X = H 3X 0 0 0 b4 b4 0 0 0 b5 b5 0 0 b6 b6 0 0 0 1 b7 b7

We have demonstrated that YX equals the identity matrix, and the YC = D, so that YC 䊝 D equals the null vector. RATIONALE The S-box is designed to be resistant to known cryptanalytic attacks. Specifically, the Rijndael developers sought a design that has a low correlation between input bits and output bits and the property that the output is not a linear mathematical function of the input [DAEM01]. The nonlinearity is due to the use of the multiplicative inverse. In addition, the constant in Equation (5.1) was chosen so that the S-box has no fixed points [S-box(a) = a] and no “opposite fixed points” [S-box(a) = a], where a is the bitwise complement of a. Of course, the S-box must be invertible, that is, IS-box[S-box(a)] = a. However, the S-box does not self-inverse in the sense that it is not true that S-box(a) = IS-box(a). For example, S-box({95}) = {2A}, but IS-box({95}) = {AD}.

ShiftRows Transformation FORWARD AND INVERSE TRANSFORMATIONS The forward shift row transformation, called ShiftRows, is depicted in Figure 5.7a. The first row of State is not altered. For the second row, a 1-byte circular left shift is performed. For the third row, a 2-byte circular left shift is performed. For the fourth row, a 3-byte circular left shift is performed. The following is an example of ShiftRows. 87 EC 4A 8C

F2 6E C3 D8

4D 4C 46 95

97 90 E7 A6

:

87 6E 46 A6

F2 4C E7 8C

4D 90 4A D8

97 EC C3 95

The inverse shift row transformation, called InvShiftRows, performs the circular shifts in the opposite direction for each of the last three rows, with a 1-byte circular right shift for the second row, and so on. R ATIONALE The shift row transformation is more substantial than it may first appear. This is because the State, as well as the cipher input and output, is treated as an array of four 4-byte columns. Thus, on encryption, the first 4 bytes of the plaintext are copied to the first column of State, and so on. Furthermore, as will be seen, the round key is applied to State column by column. Thus, a row shift moves an individual byte from one column to another, which is a linear

162

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD s0,0 s0,1 s0,2 s0,3

s0,0 s0,1 s0,2 s0,3

s1,0 s1,1 s1,2 s1,3

s1,1 s1,2 s1,3 s1,0

s2,0 s2,1 s2,2 s2,3

s2,2 s2,3 s2,0 s2,1

s3,0 s3,1 s3,2 s3,3

s3,3 s3,0 s3,1 s3,2

(a) Shift row transformation

2 1 1 3

3 2 1 1

1 3 2 1

1 1  3 2



s0,0 s0,1 s0,2 s0,3

s'0,0 s'0,1 s'0,2 s'0,3

s1,0 s1,1 s1,2 s1,3

s'1,0 s'1,1 s'1,2 s'1,3

s2,0 s2,1 s2,2 s2,3

s'2,0 s'2,1 s'2,2 s'2,3

s3,0 s3,1 s3,2 s3,3

s'3,0 s'3,1 s'3,2 s'3,3

(b) Mix column transformation Figure 5.7

AES Row and Column Operations

distance of a multiple of 4 bytes. Also note that the transformation ensures that the 4 bytes of one column are spread out to four different columns. Figure 5.4 illustrates the effect.

MixColumns Transformation FORWARD AND INVERSE TRANSFORMATIONS The forward mix column transformation, called MixColumns, operates on each column individually. Each byte of a column is mapped into a new value that is a function of all four bytes in that column. The transformation can be defined by the following matrix multiplication on State (Figure 5.7b): 02 01 D 01 03

03 02 01 01

01 03 02 01

01 s0,0 01 s T D 1,0 03 s2,0 02 s3,0

s0,1 s1,1 s2,1 s3,1

s0,2 s1,2 s2,2 s3,2

s0,3 s¿0,0 s1,3 s¿ T = D 1,0 s2,3 s¿2,0 s3,3 s¿3,0

s¿0,1 s¿1,1 s¿2,1 s¿3,1

s¿0,2 s¿1,2 s¿2,2 s¿3,2

s¿0,3 s¿1,3 T (5.3) s¿2,3 s¿3,3

Each element in the product matrix is the sum of products of elements of one row and one column. In this case, the individual additions and multiplications5 are performed

5

We follow the convention of FIPS PUB 197 and use the symbol • to indicate multiplication over the finite field GF(28) and 䊝 to indicate bitwise XOR, which corresponds to addition in GF(28).

5.3 / AES TRANSFORMATION FUNCTIONS

163

in GF(28). The MixColumns transformation on a single column of State can be expressed as

#

#

s¿0, j = (2 s0, j) 䊝 (3 s1, j) 䊝 s2, j 䊝 s3, j

#

#

s¿1, j = s0, j 䊝 (2 s1, j) 䊝 (3 s2, j) 䊝 s3, j

#

# 䊝 (2 # s

(5.4)

s¿2, j = s0, j 䊝 s1, j 䊝 (2 s2, j) 䊝 (3 s3, j)

#

s¿3, j = (3 s0, j) 䊝 s1, j 䊝 s2, j

3, j)

The following is an example of MixColumns: 87 6E 46 A6

F2 4C E7 8C

4D 90 4A D8

97 EC C3 95

:

47 37 94 ED

40 D4 E4 A5

A3 70 3A A6

4C 9F 42 BC

Let us verify the first column of this example. Recall from Section 4.7 that, in GF(28), addition is the bitwise XOR operation and that multiplication can be performed according to the rule established in Equation (4.14). In particular, multiplication of a value by x (i.e., by {02}) can be implemented as a 1-bit left shift followed by a conditional bitwise XOR with (0001 1011) if the leftmost bit of the original value (prior to the shift) is 1. Thus, to verify the MixColumns transformation on the first column, we need to show that

#

# #

# {37} # # {94} # # {ED} For the first equation, we have {02} # {87} = (0000 1110) 䊝 (0001 1011) = (0001 0101) and {03} # {6E} = {6E} 䊝 ({02} # {6E}) = (0110 1110) 䊝 (1101 1100) = (1011 0010). Then, 0001 0101 {02} # {87} = {03} # {6E} = 1011 0010 ({02} {87}) 䊝 ({03} {6E}) 䊝 {46} = 䊝 {A6} {87} = 䊝 ({02} {6E}) 䊝 ({03} {46}) 䊝 {A6} {87} 䊝 {6E} 䊝 ({02} {46}) 䊝 ({03} {A6}) = ({03} {87}) 䊝 {6E} 䊝 {46} 䊝 ({02} {A6}) =

= =

{46} {A6}

{47}

0100 0110 1010 0110 0100 0111 = { 47}

The other equations can be similarly verified. The inverse mix column transformation, called InvMixColumns, is defined by the following matrix multiplication: 0E 09 D 0D 0B

0B 0E 09 0D

0D 0B 0E 09

s0,0 09 0D s T D 1,0 0B s2,0 0E s3,0

s0,1 s1,1 s2,1 s3,1

s0,2 s1,2 s2,2 s3,2

s0,3 s¿0,0 s1,3 s¿ T = D 1,0 s2,3 s¿2,0 s3,3 s¿3,0

s¿0,1 s¿1,1 s¿2,1 s¿3,1

s¿0,2 s¿1,2 s¿2,2 s¿3,2

s¿0,3 s¿1,3 T s¿2,3 s¿3,3

(5.5)

164

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

It is not immediately clear that Equation (5.5) is the inverse of Equation (5.3). We need to show 0E 09 D 0D 0B

0B 0E 09 0D

0D 0B 0E 09

02 03 09 01 02 0D T D 01 01 0B 03 01 0E

01 03 02 01

01 s0,0 01 s1,0 T D s2,0 03 02 s3,0

s0,1 s1,1 s2,1 s3,1

s0,2 s1,2 s2,2 s3,2

s0,3 s0,0 s1,3 s1,0 T = D s2,3 s2,0 s3,3 s3,0

01 03 02 01

01 1 01 0 T = D 03 0 02 0

s0,1 s1,1 s2,1 s3,1

s0,2 s1,2 s2,2 s3,2

s0,3 s1,3 T s2,3 s3,3

which is equivalent to showing 0E 09 D 0D 0B

0B 0E 09 0D

0D 0B 0E 09

09 02 0D 01 T D 0B 01 0E 03

03 02 01 01

0 1 0 0

0 0 1 0

0 0 T 0 1

(5.6)

That is, the inverse transformation matrix times the forward transformation matrix equals the identity matrix. To verify the first column of Equation (5.6), we need to show

# {02}) 䊝 {0B} 䊝 {0D} 䊝 ({09} # {03}) = {01} # {02}) 䊝 {0E} 䊝 {0B} 䊝 ({0D} # {03}) = {00} # {02}) 䊝 {09} 䊝 {0E} 䊝 ({0B} # {03}) = {00} # {02}) 䊝 {0D} 䊝 {09} 䊝 ({0E} # {03}) = {00} For the first equation, we have {0E} # {02} = 00011100 and {09} # {03} = {09} 䊝 ({09} # {02}) = 00001001 䊝 00010010 = 00011011. Then {0E} # {02} = 00011100 ({0E} ({09} ({0D} ({0B}

{0B} = 00001011 {0D} = 00001101 {09} {03} = 00011011 00000001

#

The other equations can be similarly verified. The AES document describes another way of characterizing the MixColumns transformation, which is in terms of polynomial arithmetic. In the standard, MixColumns is defined by considering each column of State to be a four-term polynomial with coefficients in GF(28) . Each column is multiplied modulo (x4 + 1) by the fixed polynomial a(x), given by a(x) = {03}x3 + {01}x2 + {01}x + {02}

(5.7)

Appendix 5A demonstrates that multiplication of each column of State by a(x) can be written as the matrix multiplication of Equation (5.3). Similarly, it can be seen that the transformation in Equation (5.5) corresponds to treating

5.3 / AES TRANSFORMATION FUNCTIONS

165

each column as a four-term polynomial and multiplying each column by b(x) , given by b(x) = {0B}x3 + {0D}x2 + {09}x + {0E}

(5.8)

It readily can be shown that b(x) = a - 1(x) mod (x4 + 1). RATIONALE The coefficients of the matrix in Equation (5.3) are based on a linear code with maximal distance between code words, which ensures a good mixing among the bytes of each column. The mix column transformation combined with the shift row transformation ensures that after a few rounds all output bits depend on all input bits. See [DAEM99] for a discussion. In addition, the choice of coefficients in MixColumns, which are all {01}, { 02}, or { 03}, was influenced by implementation considerations. As was discussed, multiplication by these coefficients involves at most a shift and an XOR. The coefficients in InvMixColumns are more formidable to implement. However, encryption was deemed more important than decryption for two reasons: 1. For the CFB and OFB cipher modes (Figures 6.5 and 6.6; described in Chapter 6), only encryption is used. 2. As with any block cipher, AES can be used to construct a message authentication code (Chapter 12), and for this, only encryption is used.

AddRoundKey Transformation FORWARD AND INVERSE TRANSFORMATIONS In the forward add round key transformation, called AddRoundKey, the 128 bits of State are bitwise XORed with the 128 bits of the round key. As shown in Figure 5.5b, the operation is viewed as a columnwise operation between the 4 bytes of a State column and one word of the round key; it can also be viewed as a byte-level operation. The following is an example of AddRoundKey: 47 37 94 ED

40 D4 E4 A5

A3 70 3A A6

4C 9F 42 BC

䊝

AC 77 66 F3

19 FA DC 21

28 D1 29 41

57 5C 00 6A

=

EB 40 F2 1E

59 2E 38 84

8B A1 13 E7

1B C3 42 D6

The first matrix is State, and the second matrix is the round key. The inverse add round key transformation is identical to the forward add round key transformation, because the XOR operation is its own inverse. RATIONALE The add round key transformation is as simple as possible and affects every bit of State. The complexity of the round key expansion, plus the complexity of the other stages of AES, ensure security. Figure 5.8 is another view of a single round of AES, emphasizing the mechanisms and inputs of each transformation.

166

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD State matrix at beginning of round SubBytes

S-box

ShiftRows

02 01 01 03

03 02 01 01

01 03 02 01

01 01 03 02

MixColumns

MixColumns matrix Round key AddRoundKey State matrix at end of round Constant inputs

Figure 5.8

Variable input

Inputs for Single AES Round

5.4 AES KEY EXPANSION Key Expansion Algorithm The AES key expansion algorithm takes as input a four-word (16-byte) key and produces a linear array of 44 words (176 bytes). This is sufficient to provide a four-word round key for the initial AddRoundKey stage and each of the 10 rounds of the cipher. The pseudocode on the next page describes the expansion. The key is copied into the first four words of the expanded key. The remainder of the expanded key is filled in four words at a time. Each added word w[i] depends on the immediately preceding word, w[i - 1], and the word four positions back, w[i - 4]. In three out of four cases, a simple XOR is used. For a word whose position in the w array is a multiple of 4, a more complex function is used. Figure 5.9 illustrates the generation of the expanded key, using the symbol g to represent that complex function. The function g consists of the following subfunctions.

5.4 / AES KEY EXPANSION

167

KeyExpansion (byte key[16], word w[44]) { word temp for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) w[i] = (key[4*i], key[4*i+1], key[4*i+2], key[4*i+3]); for (i = 4; i < 44; i++) { temp = w[i – 1]; if (i mod 4 = 0) temp = SubWord (RotWord (temp)) 䊝 Rcon[i/4]; w[i] = w[i–4] 䊝 temp } }

k0

k4

k8 k12

k1

k5

k9 k13

k2

k6 k10 k14

k3

k7 k11 k15

w0 w1 w2 w3

w

g B0 B1 B2 B3

g

B1 B2 B3 B0 S

S

S

S

B1' B2' B3' B0' w4 w5 w6 w7

RCj 0

w'

(b) Function g

w44 w45 w46 w47 (a) Overall algorithm

Figure 5.9

AES Key Expansion

0

0

168

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

1. RotWord performs a one-byte circular left shift on a word. This means that an input word [B0, B1, B2, B3] is transformed into [B1, B2, B3, B0]. 2. SubWord performs a byte substitution on each byte of its input word, using the S-box (Table 5.2a). 3. The result of steps 1 and 2 is XORed with a round constant, Rcon[j]. The round constant is a word in which the three rightmost bytes are always 0. Thus, the effect of an XOR of a word with Rcon is to only perform an XOR on the leftmost byte of the word. The round constant is different for each round and is defined as Rcon[j] = (RC[j], 0, 0, 0), with RC[1] = 1, RC[j] = 2 RC[j-1] and with multiplication defined over the field GF(28). The values of RC[j] in hexadecimal are

#

j

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

RC[j]

01

02

04

08

10

20

40

80

1B

36

For example, suppose that the round key for round 8 is EA D2 73 21 B5 8D BA D2 31 2B F5 60 7F 8D 29 2F Then the first 4 bytes (first column) of the round key for round 9 are calculated as follows:

i (decimal) 36

temp

After RotWord

After SubWord

Rcon (9)

After XOR with Rcon

w[i- 4]

7F8D292F 8D292F7F 5DA515D2 1B000000 46A515D2 EAD27321

w[i] = temp 䊝 w[i- 4] AC7766F3

Rationale The Rijndael developers designed the expansion key algorithm to be resistant to known cryptanalytic attacks. The inclusion of a round-dependent round constant eliminates the symmetry, or similarity, between the ways in which round keys are generated in different rounds. The specific criteria that were used are [DAEM99] • Knowledge of a part of the cipher key or round key does not enable calculation of many other round-key bits. • An invertible transformation [i.e., knowledge of any Nk consecutive words of the expanded key enables regeneration the entire expanded key (Nk = key size in words)]. • Speed on a wide range of processors. • Usage of round constants to eliminate symmetries. • Diffusion of cipher key differences into the round keys; that is, each key bit affects many round key bits. • Enough nonlinearity to prohibit the full determination of round key differences from cipher key differences only. • Simplicity of description.

5.5 / AN AES EXAMPLE

169

The authors do not quantify the first point on the preceding list, but the idea is that if you know less than Nk consecutive words of either the cipher key or one of the round keys, then it is difficult to reconstruct the remaining unknown bits. The fewer bits one knows, the more difficult it is to do the reconstruction or to determine other bits in the key expansion.

5.5 AN AES EXAMPLE We now work through an example and consider some of its implications. Although you are not expected to duplicate the example by hand, you will find it informative to study the hex patterns that occur from one step to the next. For this example, the plaintext is a hexadecimal palindrome. The plaintext, key, and resulting ciphertext are Plaintext: Key:

0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210 0f1571c947d9e8590cb7add6af7f6798 ff0b844a0853bf7c6934ab4364148fb9

Ciphertext:

Results Table 5.3 shows the expansion of the 16-byte key into 10 round keys. As previously explained, this process is performed word by word, with each four-byte word occupying one column of the word round-key matrix. The left-hand column shows the four round-key words generated for each round. The right-hand column shows the steps Table 5.3 Key Expansion for AES Example Key Words w0 w1 w2 w3

= = = =

0f 47 0c af

15 d9 b7 7f

w4 w5 w6 w7

= = = =

w0 w4 w5 w6

䊝 䊝 䊝 䊝

Auxiliary Function RotWord (w3) = 7f 67 98 af = x1 SubWord (x1) = d2 85 46 79 = y1 Rcon (1) = 01 00 00 00 y1 䊝 Rcon (1) = d3 85 46 79 = z1

71 c9 e8 59 ad 67 98 z1 w1 w2 w3

= = = =

dc 9b 97 38

90 49 fe 81

37 df 72 15

b0 e9 3f a7

RotWord (w7) = 81 15 a7 38 = x2 SubWord (x4) = 0c 59 5c 07 = y2 Rcon (2) = 02 00 00 00 y2 䊝 Rcon (2) = 0e 59 5c 07 = z2

w8 w9 w10 w11

= = = =

w4 䊝 z2 = d2 c9 6b b7 w8 䊝 w5 = 49 80 b4 5e w9 䊝 w6 = de 7e c6 61 w10 䊝 w7 = e6 ff d3 c6

RotWord (w11) = ff d3 c6 e6 = x3 SubWord (x2) = 16 66 b4 83 = y3 Rcon (3) = 04 00 00 00 y3 䊝 Rcon (3) = 12 66 b4 8e = z3

w12 w13 w14 w15

= = = =

w8 䊝 z3 = c0 af df 39 w12 䊝 w9 = 89 2f 6b 67 w13 䊝 w10 = 57 51 ad 06 w14 䊝 w11 = b1 ae 7e c0

RotWord (w15) = ae 7e c0 b1 = x4 SubWord (x3) = e4 f3 ba c8 = y4 Rcon (4) = 08 00 00 00 y4 䊝 Rcon (4) = ec f3 ba c8 = 4

(Continued)

170

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD Table 5.3 Continued Key Words

Auxiliary Function

w16 w17 w18 w19

= = = =

w12 䊝 z4 = 2c 5c 65 f1 w16 䊝 w13 = a5 73 0e 96 w17 䊝 w14 = f2 22 a3 90 w18 䊝 w15 = 43 8c dd 50

RotWord(w19) = 8c dd 50 43 = x5 SubWord(x4) = 64 c1 53 1a = y5 Rcon(5) = 10 00 00 00 y5 䊝 Rcon(5) = 74 c1 53 1a = z5

w20 w21 w22 w23

= = = =

w16 䊝 z5 = 58 9d 36 eb w20 䊝 w17 = fd ee 38 7d w21 䊝 w18 = 0f cc 9b ed w22 䊝 w19 = 4c 40 46 bd

RotWord (w23) = 40 46 bd 4c = x6 SubWord (x5) = 09 5a 7a 29 = y6 Rcon(6) = 20 00 00 00 y6 䊝 Rcon(6) = 29 5a 7a 29 = z6

w24 w25 w26 w27

= = = =

w20 䊝 z6 = 71 c7 4c c2 w24 䊝 w21 = 8c 29 74 bf w25 䊝 w22 = 83 e5 ef 52 w26 䊝 w23 = cf a5 a9 ef

RotWord (w27) = a5 a9 ef cf = x7 SubWord (x6) = 06 d3 bf 8a = y7 Rcon (7) = 40 00 00 00 y7 䊝 Rcon(7) = 46 d3 df 8a = z7

w28 w29 w30 w31

= = = =

w24 䊝 z7 = 37 14 93 48 w28 䊝 w25 = bb 3d e7 f7 w29 䊝 w26 = 38 d8 08 a5 w30 䊝 w27 = f7 7d a1 4a

RotWord (w31) = 7d a1 4a f7 = x8 SubWord (x7) = ff 32 d6 68 = y8 Rcon (8) = 80 00 00 00 y8 䊝 Rcon(8) = 7f 32 d6 68 = z8

w32 w33 w34 w35

= = = =

w28 䊝 z8 = 48 26 45 20 w32 䊝 w29 = f3 1b a2 d7 w33 䊝 w30 = cb c3 aa 72 w34 䊝 w32 = 3c be 0b 3

RotWord (w35) = be 0b 38 3c = x9 SubWord (x8) = ae 2b 07 eb = y9 Rcon (9) = 1B 00 00 00 y9 䊝 Rcon (9) = b5 2b 07 eb = z9

w36 w37 w38 w39

= = = =

w32 䊝 z9 = fd 0d 42 cb w36 䊝 w33 = 0e 16 e0 1c w37 䊝 w34 = c5 d5 4a 6e w38 䊝 w35 = f9 6b 41 56

RotWord (w39) = 6b 41 56 f9 = x10 SubWord (x9) = 7f 83 b1 99 = y10 Rcon (10) = 36 00 00 00 y10 䊝 Rcon (10) = 49 83 b1 99 = z10

w40 w41 w42 w43

= = = =

w36 䊝 z10 w40 䊝 w37 w41 䊝 w38 w42 䊝 w39

= = = =

b4 ba 7f 86

8e 98 4d 26

f3 13 59 18

52 4e 20 76

used to generate the auxiliary word used in key expansion. We begin, of course, with the key itself serving as the round key for round 0. Next, Table 5.4 shows the progression of State through the AES encryption process. The first column shows the value of State at the start of a round. For the first row, State is just the matrix arrangement of the plaintext.The second, third, and fourth columns show the value of State for that round after the SubBytes, ShiftRows, and MixColumns transformations, respectively. The fifth column shows the round key. You can verify that these round keys equate with those shown in Table 5.3. The first column shows the value of State resulting from the bitwise XOR of State after the preceding MixColumns with the round key for the preceding round.

Avalanche Effect If a small change in the key or plaintext were to produce a corresponding small change in the ciphertext, this might be used to effectively reduce the size of the

5.5 / AN AES EXAMPLE

171

Table 5.4 AES Example Start of Round

After SubBytes

After ShiftRows

After MixColumns

Round Key

01

89 fe 76

0f 47 0c af

23

ab dc 54

15 d9 b7 7f

45

cd ba 32

71 e8 ad 67

67

ef 98 10

c9 59 d6 98

0e

ce f2 d9

ab 8b 89 35

ab 8b 89 35

b9 94 57 75

dc 9b 97 38

36

72 6b 2b

05 40 7f f1

40 7f f1 05

e4 8e 16 51

90 49 fe 81

34

25 17 55

18 3f f0 fc

f0 fc 18 3f

47 20 9a 3f

37 df 72 15

ae

b6 4e 88

e4 4e 2f c4

c4 e4 4e 2f

c5 d6 f5 3b

b0 e9 3f a7

65

0f c0 4d

4d 76 ba e3

4d 76 ba e3

8e 22 db 12

d2 49 de e6

74

c7 e8 d0

92 c6 9b 70

c6 9b 70 92

b2 f2 dc 92

c9 80 7e ff

70

ff e8 2a

51 16 9b e5

9b e5 51 16

df 80 f7 c1

6b b4 c6 d3

75

3f ca 9c

9d 75 74 de

de 9d 75 74

2d c5 1e 52

b7 5e 61 c6

5c

6b 05 f4

4a 7f 6b bf

4a 7f 6b bf

b1 c1 0b cc

c0 89 57 b1

7b

72 a2 6d

21 40 3a 3c

40 3a 3c 21

ba f3 8b 07

af 2f 51 ae

b4

34 31 12

8d 18 c7 c9

c7 c9 8d 18

f9 1f 6a c3

df 6b ad 7e

9a

9b 7f 94

b8 14 d2 22

22 b8 14 d2

1d 19 24 5c

39 67 06 c0

71

48 5c 7d

a3 52 4a ff

a3 52 4a ff

d4 11 fe 0f

2c a5 f2 43

15

dc da a9

59 86 57 d3

86 57 d3 59

3b 44 06 73

5c 73 22 8c

26

74 c7 bd

f7 92 c6 7a

c6 7a f7 92

cb ab 62 37

65 0e a3 dd

24

7e 22 9c

36 f3 93 de

de 36 f3 93

19 b7 07 ec

f1 96 90 50

f8

b4 0c 4c

41 8d fe 29

41 8d fe 29

2a 47 c4 48

58 fd 0f 4c

67

37 24 ff

85 9a 36 16

9a 36 16 85

83 e8 18 ba

9d ee cc 40

ae

a5 c1 ea

e4 06 78 87

78 87 e4 06

84 18 27 23

36 38 9b 46

e8

21 97 bc

9b fd 88 65

65 9b fd 88

eb 10 0a f3

eb 7d ed bd

72

ba cb 04

40 f4 1f f2

40 f4 1f f2

7b 05 42 4a

71 8c 83 cf

1e

06 d4 fa

72 6f 48 2d

6f 48 2d 72

1e d0 20 40

c7 29 e5 a5

b2

20 bc 65

37 b7 65 4d

65 4d 37 b7

94 83 18 52

4c 74 ef a9

00

6d e7 4e

63 3c 94 2f

2f 63 3c 94

94 c4 43 fb

c2 bf 52 ef

0a

89 c1 85

67 a7 78 97

67 a7 78 97

ec 1a c0 80

37 bb 38 f7

d9

f9 c5 e5

35 99 a6 d9

99 a6 d9 35

0c 50 53 c7

14 3d d8 7d

d8

f7 f7 fb

61 68 68 0f

68 0f 61 68

3b d7 00 ef

93 e7 08 a1

56

7b 11 14

b1 21 82 fa

fa b1 21 82

b7 22 72 e0

48 f7 a5 4a

db

a1 f8 77

b9

32 41 f5

b9 32 41 f5

b1 1a 44 17

48 f3 cb 3c

18

6d 8b ba

ad

3c 3d f4

3c 3d f4 ad

3d 2f ec b6

26 1b c3 be

a8

30 08 4e

c2

04 30 2f

30 2f c2 04

0a 6b 2f 42

45 a2 aa 0b

ff

d5 d7 aa

16

03 0e ac

ac 16 03 0e

9f 68 f3 b1

20 d7 72 38

(Continued)

172

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD Table 5.4 Continued Start of Round

After SubBytes

After ShiftRows

After MixColumns

Round Key

f9 e9 8f 2b

99

1e 73 f1

99 1e 73 f1

31 30 3a c2

fd 0e c5 f9

1b 34 2f 08

af

18 15 30

18 15 30 af

ac 71 8c c4

0d 16 d5 6b

4f c9 85 49

84

dd 97 3b

97 3b 84 dd

46 65 48 eb

42 e0 4a 41

bf bf 81 89

08

08 0c a7

a7 08 08 0c

6a 1c 31 62

cb 1c 6e 56

cc 3e ff 3b

4b b2 16

e2

4b b2 16 e2

4b 86 8a 36

b4 8e f3 52

a1 67 59 af

32 85 cb

79

85 cb 79 32

b1 cb 27 5a

ba 98 13 4e

04 85 02 aa

f2 97 77

ac

77 ac f2 97

fb f2 f2 af

7f 4d 59 20

a1 00 5f 34

32 63 cf

18

18 32 63 cf

cc 5a 5b cf

86 26 18 76

ff 08 69 64 0b 53 34 14 84 bf ab 8f 4a 7c 43 b9

plaintext (or key) space to be searched. What is desired is the avalanche effect, in which a small change in plaintext or key produces a large change in the ciphertext. Using the example from Table 5.4, Table 5.5 shows the result when the eighth bit of the plaintext is changed. The second column of the table shows the value of the State matrix at the end of each round for the two plaintexts. Note that after just one round, 20 bits of the State vector differ. After two rounds, close to half the bits differ. This magnitude of difference propagates through the remaining rounds. A bit difference in approximately half the positions in the most desirable outcome. Clearly, if almost all the bits are changed, this would be logically equivalent to almost none of the bits being changed. Put another way, if we select two plaintexts at random, we would expect the two plaintexts to differ in about half of the bit positions and the two ciphertexts to also differ in about half the positions. Table 5.6 shows the change in State matrix values when the same plaintext is used and the two keys differ in the eighth bit. That is, for the second case, the key is 0e1571c947d9e8590cb7add6af7f6798. Again, one round produces a Table 5.5 Avalanche Effect in AES: Change in Plaintext Number of Bits that Differ

Round 0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210 0023456789abcdeffedcba9876543210

1

0

0e3634aece7225b6f26b174ed92b5588 0f3634aece7225b6f26b174ed92b5588

1

1

657470750fc7ff3fc0e8e8ca4dd02a9c c4a9ad090fc7ff3fc0e8e8ca4dd02a9c

20

2

5c7bb49a6b72349b05a2317ff46d1294 fe2ae569f7ee8bb8c1f5a2bb37ef53d5

58

(Continued)

5.5 / AN AES EXAMPLE Table 5.5 Continued Number of Bits that Differ

Round 3

7115262448dc747e5cdac7227da9bd9c ec093dfb7c45343d689017507d485e62

59

4

f867aee8b437a5210c24c1974cffeabc 43efdb697244df808e8d9364ee0ae6f5

61

5

721eb200ba06206dcbd4bce704fa654e 7b28a5d5ed643287e006c099bb375302

68

6

0ad9d85689f9f77bc1c5f71185e5fb14 3bc2d8b6798d8ac4fe36a1d891ac181a

64

7

db18a8ffa16d30d5f88b08d777ba4eaa 9fb8b5452023c70280e5c4bb9e555a4b

67

8

f91b4fbfe934c9bf8f2f85812b084989 20264e1126b219aef7feb3f9b2d6de40

65

9

cca104a13e678500ff59025f3bafaa34 b56a0341b2290ba7dfdfbddcd8578205

61

10

ff0b844a0853bf7c6934ab4364148fb9 612b89398d0600cde116227ce72433f0

58

Table 5.6 Avalanche Effect in AES: Change in Key Number of Bits that Differ

Round 0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210 0123456789abcdeffedcba9876543210

0

0

0e3634aece7225b6f26b174ed92b5588 0f3634aece7225b6f26b174ed92b5588

1

1

657470750fc7ff3fc0e8e8ca4dd02a9c c5a9ad090ec7ff3fc1e8e8ca4cd02a9c

22

2

5c7bb49a6b72349b05a2317ff46d1294 90905fa9563356d15f3760f3b8259985

58

3

7115262448dc747e5cdac7227da9bd9c 18aeb7aa794b3b66629448d575c7cebf

67

4

f867aee8b437a5210c24c1974cffeabc f81015f993c978a876ae017cb49e7eec

63

5

721eb200ba06206dcbd4bce704fa654e 5955c91b4e769f3cb4a94768e98d5267

81

6

0ad9d85689f9f77bc1c5f71185e5fb14 dc60a24d137662181e45b8d3726b2920

70

7

db18a8ffa16d30d5f88b08d777ba4eaa fe8343b8f88bef66cab7e977d005a03c

74

8

f91b4fbfe934c9bf8f2f85812b084989 da7dad581d1725c5b72fa0f9d9d1366a

67

9

cca104a13e678500ff59025f3bafaa34 0ccb4c66bbfd912f4b511d72996345e0

59

10

ff0b844a0853bf7c6934ab4364148fb9 fc8923ee501a7d207ab670686839996b

53

173

174

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

significant change, and the magnitude of change after all subsequent rounds is roughly half the bits. Thus, based on this example, AES exhibits a very strong avalanche effect. Note that this avalanche effect is stronger than that for DES (Table 3.5), which requires three rounds to reach a point at which approximately half the bits are changed, both for a bit change in the plaintext and a bit change in the key.

5.6 AES IMPLEMENTATION Equivalent Inverse Cipher As was mentioned, the AES decryption cipher is not identical to the encryption cipher (Figure 5.3). That is, the sequence of transformations for decryption differs from that for encryption, although the form of the key schedules for encryption and decryption is the same. This has the disadvantage that two separate software or firmware modules are needed for applications that require both encryption and decryption. There is, however, an equivalent version of the decryption algorithm that has the same structure as the encryption algorithm. The equivalent version has the same sequence of transformations as the encryption algorithm (with transformations replaced by their inverses). To achieve this equivalence, a change in key schedule is needed. Two separate changes are needed to bring the decryption structure in line with the encryption structure. As illustrated in Figure 5.3, an encryption round has the structure SubBytes, ShiftRows, MixColumns, AddRoundKey. The standard decryption round has the structure InvShiftRows, InvSubBytes, AddRoundKey, InvMixColumns. Thus, the first two stages of the decryption round need to be interchanged, and the second two stages of the decryption round need to be interchanged. INTERCHANGING INVSHIFTROWS AND INVSUBBYTES InvShiftRows affects the sequence of bytes in State but does not alter byte contents and does not depend on byte contents to perform its transformation. InvSubBytes affects the contents of bytes in State but does not alter byte sequence and does not depend on byte sequence to perform its transformation. Thus, these two operations commute and can be interchanged. For a given State Si, InvShiftRows [InvSubBytes (Si)] = InvSubBytes [InvShiftRows (Si)] INTERCHANGING ADDROUNDKEY AND INVMIXCOLUMNS The transformations AddRoundKey and InvMixColumns do not alter the sequence of bytes in State. If we view the key as a sequence of words, then both AddRoundKey and InvMixColumns operate on State one column at a time. These two operations are linear with respect to the column input. That is, for a given State Si and a given round key wj, InvMixColumns (Si 䊝 wj) = [InvMixColumns (Si)] 䊝 [InvMixColumns (wj)]

5.6 / AES IMPLEMENTATION

175

To see this, suppose that the first column of State Si is the sequence (y0, y1, y2, y3) and the first column of the round key wj is (k0, k1, k2, k3). Then we need to show 0E 09 D 0D 0B

0B 0E 09 0D

09 y0 䊝 k0 0E 0B y1 䊝 k1 0D 09 0E T D T = D 0B y2 䊝 k2 0D 09 0E y3 䊝 k3 0B 0D

0D 0B 0E 09

0D 0B 0E 09

09 y0 0E y1 0D 09 T D T䊝D 0B y2 0D 0E y3 0B

0B 0E 09 0D

Let us demonstrate that for the first column entry. We need to show

#

#

# #

# #

# #

#

# #

0D 0B 0E 09

09 k0 k 0D T D 1T 0B k2 0E k3

#

[{0E} (y0 䊝 k0)] 䊝 [{0B} (y1 䊝 k1)] 䊝 [{0D} (y2 䊝 k2)] 䊝 [{09} (y3 䊝 k3)] = [{0E} y0] 䊝 [{0B} y1] 䊝 [{0D} y2] 䊝 [{09} y3] 䊝 [{0E} k0] 䊝 [{0B} k1] 䊝 [{0D} k2] 䊝 [{09} k3] This equation is valid by inspection.Thus, we can interchange AddRoundKey and InvMixColumns, provided that we first apply InvMixColumns to the round key. Note that we do not need to apply InvMixColumns to the round key for the input to the first AddRoundKey transformation (preceding the first round) nor to the last AddRoundKey transformation (in round 10).This is because these two AddRoundKey transformations are not interchanged with InvMixColumns to produce the equivalent decryption algorithm. Figure 5.10 illustrates the equivalent decryption algorithm.

Implementation Aspects The Rijndael proposal [DAEM99] provides some suggestions for efficient implementation on 8-bit processors, typical for current smart cards, and on 32-bit processors, typical for PCs. 8-BIT PROCESSOR AES can be implemented very efficiently on an 8-bit processor. AddRoundKey is a bytewise XOR operation. ShiftRows is a simple byte-shifting operation. SubBytes operates at the byte level and only requires a table of 256 bytes. The transformation MixColumns requires matrix multiplication in the field GF(28), which means that all operations are carried out on bytes. MixColumns only requires multiplication by {02} and {03}, which, as we have seen, involved simple shifts, conditional XORs, and XORs. This can be implemented in a more efficient way that eliminates the shifts and conditional XORs. Equation set (5.4) shows the equations for the MixColumns transformation on a single column. Using the identity {03} x = ({02} x) 䊝 x, we can rewrite Equation set (5.4) as follows.

#

#

Tmp = s0, j 䊝 s1, j 䊝 s2, j 䊝 s3, j

# 䊝 Tmp 䊝 [2 # (s 䊝 Tmp 䊝 [2 # (s 䊝 Tmp 䊝 [2 # (s

s¿0, j = s0, j 䊝 Tmp 䊝 [2 (s0, j 䊝 s1, j)] s¿1, j = s1, j s¿2, j = s2, j s¿3, j = s3, j

1, j

䊝 s2, j)]

2, j

䊝 s3, j)]

3, j

䊝 s0, j)]

Equation set (5.9) is verified by expanding and eliminating terms.

(5.9)

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD Ciphertext Add round key

w[40, 43]

Inverse shift rows Inverse mix cols Inverse mix cols

Round 1

Inverse sub bytes

Add round key

w[36, 39]

• • •

Inverse shift rows Inverse mix cols Inverse mix cols w[4, 7]

Add round key Inverse sub bytes

Expand key

Inverse shift rows

w[0, 3]

Add round key

Key

Plaintext

Figure 5.10

Round 9

Inverse sub bytes

Round 10

176

Equivalent Inverse Cipher

The multiplication by {02} involves a shift and a conditional XOR. Such an implementation may be vulnerable to a timing attack of the sort described in Section 3.4. To counter this attack and to increase processing efficiency at the cost of some storage, the multiplication can be replaced by a table lookup. Define the 256-byte table X2, such that X2[i] = {02} i. Then Equation set (5.9) can be rewritten as

#

Tmp = s0, j 䊝 s1, j 䊝 s2, j 䊝 s3, j s¿0, j = s0, j 䊝 Tmp 䊝 X2[s0, j 䊝 s1, j] s¿1, c = s1, j 䊝 Tmp 䊝 X2[s1, j 䊝 s2, j] s¿2, c = s2, j 䊝 Tmp 䊝 X2[s2, j 䊝 s3, j] s¿3, j = s3, j 䊝 Tmp 䊝 X2[s3, j 䊝 s0, j]

5.6 / AES IMPLEMENTATION

177

32-BIT PROCESSOR The implementation described in the preceding subsection uses only 8-bit operations. For a 32-bit processor, a more efficient implementation can be achieved if operations are defined on 32-bit words. To show this, we first define the four transformations of a round in algebraic form. Suppose we begin with a State matrix consisting of elements ai, j and a round-key matrix consisting of elements ki, j. Then the transformations can be expressed as follows.

SubBytes

bi, j = S[ai, j]

ShiftRows

c0, j b0, j c b D 1, j T = D 1, j - 1 T c2, j b2, j - 2 c3, j b3, j - 3 d0, j 02 d 01 D 1, j T = D d2, j 01 d3, j 03

MixColumns

03 02 01 01

01 03 02 01

01 c0, j 01 c1, j TD T 03 c2, j 02 c3, j

e0, j d0, j k0, j e1, j d1, j k1, j D T = D T䊝D T e2, j d2, j k2, j e3, j d3, j k3, j

AddRoundKey

In the ShiftRows equation, the column indices are taken mod 4. We can combine all of these expressions into a single equation: e0, j 02 e 01 D 1, j T = D e2, j 01 e3, j 03

03 02 01 01

01 03 02 01

01 S[a0, j] k0, j 01 S[a ] k T D 1, j - 1 T 䊝 D 1, j T 03 S[a2, j - 2] k2, j 02 S[a3, j - 3] k3, j

02 03 01 01 02 03 = § D T S[a0, j]¥ 䊝 § D T S[a1, j-1]¥ 䊝 § D T S[a2, j-2]¥ 01 01 02 03 01 01

#

#

#

01 k0, j 01 k1, j T 䊝 § D T S[a3, j-3]¥ 䊝 D 03 k2, j 02 k3, j

#

In the second equation, we are expressing the matrix multiplication as a linear combination of vectors. We define four 256-word (1024-byte) tables as follows.

178

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

02 03 01 01 01 02 03 01 T0[x] = § D T S[x]¥ T1[x] = § D T S[x]¥ T2[x] = § D T S[x]¥ T3[x] = § D T S[x]¥ 01 01 02 03 03 01 01 02

#

#

#

#

Thus, each table takes as input a byte value and produces a column vector (a 32-bit word) that is a function of the S-box entry for that byte value. These tables can be calculated in advance. We can define a round function operating on a column in the following fashion. s¿0, j s¿ D 1, j T = T0[s0, j] 䊝 T1[s1,j - 1] 䊝 T2[s2,j - 2] 䊝 T3[s3,j - 3] 䊝 s¿2, j s¿3, j

k0, j k1, j D T k2, j k3, j

As a result, an implementation based on the preceding equation requires only four table lookups and four XORs per column per round, plus 4 Kbytes to store the table. The developers of Rijndael believe that this compact, efficient implementation was probably one of the most important factors in the selection of Rijndael for AES.

5.7 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITES The most thorough description of AES so far available is the book by the developers of AES, [DAEM02]. The authors also provide a brief description and design rationale in [DAEM01]. [LAND04] is a rigorous mathematical treatment of AES and its cryptanalysis. Another worked-out example of AES operation, authored by instructors at Massey U., New Zealand is available at this book’s Web site.

DAEM01 Daemen, J., and Rijmen, V. “Rijndael: The Advanced Encryption Standard.” Dr. Dobb’s Journal, March 2001. DAEM02 Daemen, J., and Rijmen, V. The Design of Rijndael: The Wide Trail Strategy Explained. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002. LAND04 Landau, S. “Polynomials in the Nation’s Service: Using Algebra to Design the Advanced Encryption Standard.” American Mathematical Monthly, February 2004.

Recommended Web Sites: • AES home page: NIST’s page on AES. Contains the standard plus a number of other relevant documents. • The AES Lounge: Contains a comprehensive bibliography of documents and papers on AES, with access to electronic copies.

5.8 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

179

5.8 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

power analysis Rijndael

S-box

Review Questions 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14

What was the original set of criteria used by NIST to evaluate candidate AES ciphers? What was the final set of criteria used by NIST to evaluate candidate AES ciphers? What is the difference between Rijndael and AES? What is the purpose of the State array? How is the S-box constructed? Briefly describe SubBytes. Briefly describe ShiftRows. How many bytes in State are affected by ShiftRows? Briefly describe MixColumns. Briefly describe AddRoundKey. Briefly describe the key expansion algorithm. What is the difference between SubBytes and SubWord? What is the difference between ShiftRows and RotWord? What is the difference between the AES decryption algorithm and the equivalent inverse cipher?

Problems 5.1

In the discussion of MixColumns and InvMixColumns, it was stated that b(x) = a - 1(x)mod (x4 + 1)

5.2 5.3 5.4

5.5 5.6

where a(x) = {03}x3 + {01}x2 + {01}x + {02} and b(x) = {0B}x3 + {0D}x2 + {09}x + {0E}. Show that this is true. a. What is {01} - 1 in GF(28)? b. Verify the entry for {01} in the S-box. Show the first eight words of the key expansion for a 128-bit key of all zeros. Given the plaintext {000102030405060708090A0B0C0D0E0F} and the key {01010101010101010101010101010101}: a. Show the original contents of State, displayed as a 4 × 4 matrix. b. Show the value of State after initial AddRoundKey. c. Show the value of State after SubBytes. d. Show the value of State after ShiftRows. e. Show the value of State after MixColumns. Verify Equation (5.11). That is, show that xi mod (x4 + 1) = xi mod 4. Compare AES to DES. For each of the following elements of DES, indicate the comparable element in AES or explain why it is not needed in AES. a. XOR of subkey material with the input to the f function b. XOR of the f function output with the left half of the block c. f function

180

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

5.7 5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

d. permutation P e. swapping of halves of the block In the subsection on implementation aspects, it is mentioned that the use of tables helps thwart timing attacks. Suggest an alternative technique. In the subsection on implementation aspects, a single algebraic equation is developed that describes the four stages of a typical round of the encryption algorithm. Provide the equivalent equation for the tenth round. Compute the output of the MixColumns transformation for the following sequence of input bytes “67 89 AB CD”. Apply the InvMixColumns transformation to the obtained result to verify your calculations. Change the first byte of the input from ‘67’ to ‘77’, perform the MixColumns transformation again for the new input, and determine how many bits have changed in the output. Note: You can perform all calculations by hand or write a program supporting these computations. If you choose to write a program, it should be written entirely by you; no use of libraries or public domain source code is allowed in this assignment. Use the key 1010 0111 0011 1011 to encrypt the plaintext “ok” as expressed in ASCII as 0110 1111 0110 1011. The designers of S-AES got the ciphertext 0000 0111 0011 1000. Do you? Show that the matrix given here, with entries in GF(24), is the inverse of the matrix used in the MixColumns step of S-AES. a

5.12

5.13

x3 + 1 x

x b x3 + 1

Carefully write up a complete decryption of the ciphertext 0000 0111 0011 1000 using the key 1010 0111 0011 1011 and the S-AES algorithm. You should get the plaintext we started with in Problem 5.10. Note that the inverse of the S-boxes can be done with a reverse table lookup. The inverse of the MixColumns step is given by the matrix in the previous problem. Demonstrate that Equation (5.9) is equivalent to Equation (5.4).

Programming Problems 5.14

5.15

Create software that can encrypt and decrypt using S-AES. Test data:A binary plaintext of 0110 1111 0110 1011 encrypted with a binary key of 1010 0111 0011 1011 should give a binary ciphertext of 0000 0111 0011 1000. Decryption should work correspondingly. Implement a differential cryptanalysis attack on 1-round S-AES.

APPENDIX 5A

POLYNOMIALS WITH COEFFICIENTS IN GF(28)

In Section 4.5, we discussed polynomial arithmetic in which the coefficients are in Zp and the polynomials are defined modulo a polynomial M(x) whose highest power is some integer n. In this case, addition and multiplication of coefficients occurred within the field Zp; that is, addition and multiplication were performed modulo p. The AES document defines polynomial arithmetic for polynomials of degree 3 or less with coefficients in GF(28). The following rules apply. 1. Addition is performed by adding corresponding coefficients in GF(28). As was pointed out Section 4.5, if we treat the elements of GF(28) as 8-bit strings, then addition is equivalent to the XOR operation. So, if we have a(x) = a3x3 + a2x2 + a1x + a0

(5.10)

APPENDIX 5A / POLYNOMIALS WITH COEFFICIENTS IN GF(28)

181

and b(x) = b3x3 + b2x2 + b1x + b0

(5.11)

then a(x) + b(x) = (a3 䊝 b3)x3 + (a2 䊝 b2)x2 + (a1 䊝 b1)x + (a0 䊝 b0) 2. Multiplication is performed as in ordinary polynomial multiplication with two refinements: a. Coefficients are multiplied in GF(28). b. The resulting polynomial is reduced mod (x4 + 1). We need to keep straight which polynomial we are talking about. Recall from Section 4.6 that each element of GF(28) is a polynomial of degree 7 or less with binary coefficients, and multiplication is carried out modulo a polynomial of degree 8. Equivalently, each element of GF(28) can be viewed as an 8-bit byte whose bit values correspond to the binary coefficients of the corresponding polynomial. For the sets defined in this section, we are defining a polynomial ring in which each element of this ring is a polynomial of degree 3 or less with coefficients in GF(28) , and multiplication is carried out modulo a polynomial of degree 4. Equivalently, each element of this ring can be viewed as a 4-byte word whose byte values are elements of GF(28) that correspond to the 8-bit coefficients of the corresponding polynomial. We denote the modular product of a(x) and b(x) by a(x) 䊟 b(x) . To compute d(x) = a(x) 䊟 b(x), the first step is to perform a multiplication without the modulo operation and to collect coefficients of like powers. Let us express this as c(x) = a(x) * b(x). Then c(x) = c6x6 + c5x5 + c4x4 + c3x3 + c2x2 + c1x + c0 where c0 c1 c2 c3

= = = =

#b # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b )

a0 (a1 (a2 (a3

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

2

0

2

1

1

2

0

# #

# #

(5.12)

#

c4 = (a3 b1) 䊝 (a2 b2) 䊝 (a1 b3) c5 = (a3 b2) 䊝 (a2 b3) c6 = a3 b3

#

3

The final step is to perform the modulo operation d(x) = c(x) mod (x4 + 1) That is, d(x) must satisfy the equation c(x) = [(x4 + 1) * q(x)] 䊝 d(x) such that the degree of d(x) is 3 or less. A practical technique for performing multiplication over this polynomial ring is based on the observation that xi mod (x4 + 1) = xi mod 4

(5.13)

182

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

If we now combine Equations (5.12) and (5.13), we end up with d(x) = c(x) mod (x4 + 1) = [c6x6 + c5x5 + c4x4 + c3x3 + c2x2 + c1x + c0] mod (x4 + 1) = c3 x3 + (c2 䊝 c6)x2 + (c1 䊝 c5)x + (c0 䊝 c4) Expanding the ci coefficients, we have the following equations for the coefficients of d(x).

# # # # = (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) = (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) = (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b ) 䊝 (a # b )

d0 = (a0 b0) 䊝 (a3 b1) 䊝 (a2 b2) 䊝 (a1 b3) d1 d2 d3

1

0

0

1

3

2

2

3

2

0

1

1

0

2

3

3

3

0

2

1

1

2

0

3

This can be written in matrix form: d0 a0 d1 a D T = D 1 d2 a2 d3 a3

a3 a0 a1 a2

a2 a3 a0 a1

a1 b0 a2 b1 T D T a3 b2 a0 b3

(5.14)

MixColumns Transformation In the discussion of MixColumns, it was stated that there were two equivalent ways of defining the transformation. The first is the matrix multiplication shown in Equation (5.3), which is repeated here: 02 01 D 01 03

03 02 01 01

01 03 02 01

01 s0, 0 01 s1, 0 T D s2, 0 03 s3, 0 02

s0, 1 s1, 1 s2, 1 s3, 1

s0, 2 s1, 2 s2, 2 s3, 2

s0, 3 s¿0, 0 s1, 3 s¿ T = D 1, 0 s2, 3 s¿2, 0 s3, 3 s¿3, 0

s¿0, 1 s¿1, 1 s¿2, 1 s¿3, 1

s¿0, 2 s¿1, 2 s¿2, 2 s¿3, 2

s¿0, 3 s¿1, 3 T s¿2, 3 s¿3, 3

The second method is to treat each column of State as a four-term polynomial with coefficients in GF(28). Each column is multiplied modulo (x4 + 1) by the fixed polynomial a(x), given by a(x) = {03}x3 + {01}x2 + {01}x + {02} From Equation (5.10), we have a3 = {03}; a2 = {01}; a1 = {01}; and a0 = {02}. 3 For the jth column of State, we have the polynomial colj(x) = s3, j x + 2 s2, j x + s1, j x + s0, j. Substituting into Equation (5.14), we can express d(x) = a(x) * colj(x) as d0 a0 d a D 1T = D 1 d2 a2 d3 a3

a3 a0 a1 a2

a2 a3 a0 a1

a1 s0, j 02 a2 s1, j 01 T D T = D a3 s2, j 01 a0 s3, j 03

which is equivalent to Equation (5.3).

03 02 01 01

01 03 02 01

01 s0, j 01 s1, j T D T 03 s2, j 02 s3, j

APPENDIX 5B / SIMPLIFIED AES

183

Multiplication by x Consider the multiplication of a polynomial in the ring by x: c(x) = x 䊝 b(x).We have c(x) = x 䊟 b(x) = [x * (b3x3 + b2x2 + b1x + b0] mod (x4 + 1) = (b3x4 + b2x3 + b1x2 + b0x) mod (x4 + 1) = b2x3 + b1x2 + b0x + b3 Thus, multiplication by x corresponds to a 1-byte circular left shift of the 4 bytes in the word representing the polynomial. If we represent the polynomial as a 4-byte column vector, then we have c0 00 c 01 D 1T = D c2 00 c3 00

APPENDIX 5B

00 00 01 00

00 00 00 01

01 b0 00 b T D 1T 00 b2 00 b3

SIMPLIFIED AES

Simplified AES (S-AES) was developed by Professor Edward Schaefer of Santa Clara University and several of his students [MUSA03]. It is an educational rather than a secure encryption algorithm. It has similar properties and structure to AES with much smaller parameters. The reader might find it useful to work through an example by hand while following the discussion in this appendix.A good grasp of S-AES will make it easier for the student to appreciate the structure and workings of AES.

Overview Figure 5.11 illustrates the overall structure of S-AES. The encryption algorithm takes a 16-bit block of plaintext as input and a 16-bit key and produces a 16-bit block of ciphertext as output. The S-AES decryption algorithm takes an 16-bit block of ciphertext and the same 16-bit key used to produce that ciphertext as input and produces the original 16-bit block of plaintext as output. The encryption algorithm involves the use of four different functions, or transformations: add key (AK), nibble substitution (NS), shift row (SR), and mix column (MC), whose operation is explained subsequently. We can concisely express the encryption algorithm as a composition6 of functions: AK2 ⴰ SR ⴰ NS ⴰ AK1 ⴰ MC ⴰ SR ⴰ NS ⴰ AK0 so that AK0 is applied first. The encryption algorithm is organized into three rounds. Round 0 is simply an add key round; round 1 is a full round of four functions; and round 2 contains only 3 functions. Each round includes the add key function, which makes use of 16 bits of key. The initial 16-bit key is expanded to 48 bits, so that each round uses a distinct 16-bit round key. Definition: If f and g are two functions, then the function F with the equation y = F(x) = g[f(x)] is called the composition of f and g and is denoted as F = g ⴰ f. 6

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

16-bit key

16-bit plaintext

Add round key

w[0, 1]

Add round key

Nibble substitution

Expand key

Inverse nibble sub

Round 1

16-bit plaintext

Shift row

Inverse shift row

Mix columns

Inverse mix cols w[2, 3]

Add round key

Add round key

Nibble substitution

Inverse nibble sub

Shift row

Inverse shift row w[4, 5]

Add round key

Add round key

16-bit ciphertext

Figure 5.11

Round 2

DECRYPTION

Round 1

ENCRYPTION

Round 2

184

16-bit ciphertext

S-AES Encryption and Decryption

Each function operates on a 16-bit state, treated as a 2 * 2 matrix of nibbles, where one nibble equals 4 bits. The initial value of the State matrix is the 16-bit plaintext; State is modified by each subsequent function in the encryption process, producing after the last function the 16-bit ciphertext. As Figure 5.12a shows, the ordering of nibbles within the matrix is by column. So, for example, the first 8 bits of a 16-bit

S0,0 S0,1 b0b1b2b3

b8b9b10b11

b4b5b6b7

b12b13b14b15

S1,0 S1,1

Bit representation

Nibble representation (a) State matrix Original key

k0k1k2k3k4k5k6k7

Key expansion

w0 w1 w2 w3 w4 w5

k8k9k10k11k12k13k14k15

Bit representation

K0

K1 Byte representation

(b) Key

Figure 5.12

S-AES Data Structures

K2

APPENDIX 5B / SIMPLIFIED AES

185

plaintext input to the encryption cipher occupy the first column of the matrix, and the second 8 bits occupy the second column. The 16-bit key is similarly organized, but it is somewhat more convenient to view the key as two bytes rather than four nibbles (Figure 5.12b). The expanded key of 48 bits is treated as three round keys, whose bits are labeled as follows: K0 = k0 . . . k15; K1 = k16 . . . k31; and K2 = k32 . . . k47. Figure 5.13 shows the essential elements of a full round of S-AES. Decryption is also shown in Figure 5.11 and is essentially the reverse of encryption: AK0 ⴰ INS ⴰ ISR ⴰ IMC ⴰ AK1 ⴰ INS ⴰ ISR ⴰ AK2 in which three of the functions have a corresponding inverse function: inverse nibble substitution (INS), inverse shift row (ISR), and inverse mix column (IMC).

S-AES Encryption and Decryption We now look at the individual functions that are part of the encryption algorithm. ADD KEY The add key function consists of the bitwise XOR of the 16-bit State matrix and the 16-bit round key. Figure 5.14 depicts this as a columnwise operation, but it can also be viewed as a nibble-wise or bitwise operation. The following is an example. A 4 䊝 7 9 State matrix

2 5 D 5 Key

=

8 A

1 C

The inverse of the add key function is identical to the add key function, because the XOR operation is its own inverse. NIBBLE SUBSTITUTION The nibble substitution function is a simple table lookup (Figure 5.14). AES defines a 4 * 4 matrix of nibble values, called an S-box (Table 5.7a), that contains a permutation of all possible 4-bit values. Each individual nibble of State is mapped into a new nibble in the following way: The leftmost 2 bits of the nibble are used as a row value, and the rightmost 2 bits are used as a column value. These row and column values serve as indexes into the S-box to select a unique 4-bit output value. For example, the hexadecimal value A references row 2, column 2 of the S-box, which contains the value 0. Accordingly, the value A is mapped into the value 0. Here is an example of the nibble substitution transformation. 8 A

1 C

:

6 0

4 C

The inverse nibble substitution function makes use of the inverse S-box shown in Table 5.7b. Note, for example, that the input 0 produces the output A, and the input A to the S-box produces 0. SHIFT ROW The shift row function performs a one-nibble circular shift of the second row of State the first row is not altered (Figure 5.14). The following is an example. 6 0

4 C

:

6 C

4 0

186 Nibble substitution

Shift row

Mix column

Add key r0

S0,0

S

S0,0

S

S1,0

S

S0,1

S

S1,1

S0,0

S0,0

M S1,0

S0,1

S1,0

S1,0

State

Figure 5.13

S1,0 r2

S0,1

S0,1

State

S-AES Encryption Round

S0,1 r3

M S1,1

S0,0 r1

S1,1

S1,1

S1,1

State

State

State

APPENDIX 5B / SIMPLIFIED AES

x s0,0 s1,0

s'0,0

s0,1 s1,1

s'1,1

s0,0

s0,1

s0,0

s0,1

s1,0

s1,1

s1,1

s1,0

s0,1

s'0,0

s'0,1

s1,0

s1,1

s'1,0

s'1,1

s0,0

s0,1

s'0,0

s'0,1

s'1,0

s'1,1

s1,0

wi+1

s1,1

Figure 5.14

Shift row



s0,0

wi

Nibble substitution

s'0,1

s'1,0

1 4  4 1

187



Mix column

Add key

S-AES Transformations

The inverse shift row function is identical to the shift row function, because it shifts the second row back to its original position. MIX COLUMN The mix column function operates on each column individually. Each nibble of a column is mapped into a new value that is a function of both Table 5.7 S-AES S-Boxes j

j

i

00

00 9

01 4

10 A

11 B

01

D

1

8

5

10

6

2

0

3

11

C

E

F

7

(a) S-Box

i

00

01

10

11

00

A

5

9

B

01

1

7

8

F

10

6

0

2

3

11

C

4

D

E

(b) Inverse S-Box

Note: Hexadecimal numbers in shaded boxes; binary numbers in unshaded boxes.

188

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

nibbles in that column. The transformation can be defined by the following matrix multiplication on State (Figure 5.14): c

1 4

4 s0,0 d c 1 s1,0

s¿ s0,1 d = c 0, 0 s1,1 s¿1,0

s¿0, 1 d s¿1,1

Performing the matrix multiplication, we get

# # = 14 S 2 䊝 S = S 䊝 14 # S 2 = 14 # S 2 䊝 S

œ S0,0 = S0,0 䊝 14 S1,02 œ S1,0 œ S0,1 œ S1,1

0,0

0,1

1,0

1,1

0,1

1,1

Where arithmetic is performed in GF(24), and the symbol • refers to multiplication in GF(24). Appendix I provides the addition and multiplication tables. The following is an example. c

1 4

4 6 dc 1 C

4 3 d = c 0 7

4 d 3

The inverse mix column function is defined as c

9 2

2 s0, 0 dc 9 s1,0

s0,1 s¿ d = c 0, 0 s1,1 s¿1, 0

s¿0,1 d s¿1, 1

We demonstrate that we have indeed defined the inverse in the following fashion. c

9 2

2 1 dc 9 4

#

4 s0,0 dc 1 s1,0

s0,1 1 d = c s1,1 0

0 s0,0 dc 1 s1,0

s0,1 s d = c 0,0 s1,1 s1,0

s0,1 d s1,1

#

The preceding matrix multiplication makes use of the following results in GF(24): 9 + (2 4) = 9 + 8 = 1 and (9 4) + 2 = 2 + 2 = 0 . These operations can be verified using the arithmetic tables in Appendix I or by polynomial arithmetic. The mix column function is the most difficult to visualize. Accordingly, we provide an additional perspective on it in Appendix I. KEY EXPANSION For key expansion, the 16 bits of the initial key are grouped into a row of two 8-bit words. Figure 5.15 shows the expansion into six words, by the calculation of four new words from the initial two words. The algorithm is w2 w3 w4 w5

= = = =

w0 䊝 g1w12 = w0 䊝 Rcon112 䊝 SubNib1RotNib1w122 w2 䊝 w1 w2 䊝 g1w32 = w2 䊝 Rcon122 䊝 SubNib1RotNib1w322 w4 䊝 w3

Rcon is a round constant, defined as follows: RC[i] = xi + 2, so that RC[1] = x = 1000 and RC[2] = x4mod (x4 + x + 1) = x + 1 = 0011. RC[i] forms the leftmost nibble of a byte, with the rightmost nibble being all zeros. Thus, Rcon(1) = 10000000 and Rcon(2) = 00110000. For example, suppose the key is 2D55 = 0010 1101 0101 0101 = w0w1 . Then 3

APPENDIX 5B / SIMPLIFIED AES

189

w

g w0

w1

N0

N1

N1

N0

S

S

N '1

N '0

g

w2

w3

g

xi+2

w4

w5

(a) Overall algorithm

Figure 5.15

0

w'

(b) Function g

S-AES Key Expansion

w2 = 00101101 䊝 10000000 䊝 SubNib(01010101) = 00101101 䊝 10000000 䊝 00010001 = 10111100 w3 = 10111100 䊝 01010101 = 11101001 w4 = 10111100 䊝 00110000 䊝 SubNib(10011110) = 10111100 䊝 00110000 䊝 00101111 = 10100011 w5 = 10100011 䊝 11101001 = 01001010

The S-Box The S-box is constructed as follows: 1. Initialize the S-box with the nibble values in ascending sequence row by row. The first row contains the hexadecimal values (0, 1, 2, 3); the second row contains (4, 5, 6, 7); and so on. Thus, the value of the nibble at row i, column j is 4i + j.

190

CHAPTER 5 / ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD

2. Treat each nibble as an element of the finite field (24) modulo x4 + x + 1. Each nibble a0 a1 a2 a3 represents a polynomial of degree 3. 3. Map each byte in the S-box to its multiplicative inverse in the finite field GF(24) modulo x4 + x + 1; the value 0 is mapped to itself. 4. Consider that each byte in the S-box consists of 4 bits labeled (b0, b1, b2, b3). Apply the following transformation to each bit of each byte in the S-box. The AES standard depicts this transformation in matrix form as b¿0 1 b¿ 1 D 1T = D b¿2 1 b¿3 0

0 1 1 1

1 0 1 1

1 b0 1 1 b 0 T D 1T 䊝 D T 0 b2 0 1 b3 1

5. The prime ( ¿ ) indicates that the variable is to be updated by the value on the right. Remember that addition and multiplication are being calculated modulo 2. Table 5.7a shows the resulting S-box. This is a nonlinear, invertible matrix. The inverse S-box is shown in Table 5.7b.

S-AES Structure We can now examine several aspects of interest concerning the structure of AES. First, note that the encryption and decryption algorithms begin and end with the add key function. Any other function, at the beginning or end, is easily reversible without knowledge of the key and so would add no security but just a processing overhead. Thus, there is a round 0 consisting of only the add key function. The second point to note is that round 2 does not include the mix column function. The explanation for this in fact relates to a third observation, which is that although the decryption algorithm is the reverse of the encryption algorithm, as clearly seen in Figure 5.11, it does not follow the same sequence of functions. Thus, AK2 ⴰ SR ⴰ NS ⴰ AK1 ⴰ MC ⴰ SR ⴰ NS ⴰ AK0 AK0 ⴰ INS ⴰ ISR ⴰ IMC ⴰ AK1 ⴰ INS ⴰ ISR ⴰ AK2

Encryption: Decryption:

From an implementation point of view, it would be desirable to have the decryption function follow the same function sequence as encryption. This allows the decryption algorithm to be implemented in the same way as the encryption algorithm, creating opportunities for efficiency. Note that if we were able to interchange the second and third functions, the fourth and fifth functions, and the sixth and seventh functions in the decryption sequence, we would have the same structure as the encryption algorithm. Let’s see if this is possible. First, consider the interchange of INS and ISR. Given a state N consisting of the nibbles (N0, N1, N2, N3), the transformation INS(ISR(N)) proceeds as a

N0 N1

N2 N b:a 0 N3 N3

N2 IS[N 0] b:a N1 IS[N 3]

IS[N 2] b IS[N 1]

Where IS refers to the inverse S-Box. Reversing the operations, the transformation ISR(INS(N) proceeds as

APPENDIX 5B / SIMPLIFIED AES

a

N2 IS[N 0] b:a N3 IS[N 1]

N0 N1

IS[N 2] IS[N 0] b:a IS[N 3] IS[N 3]

191

IS[N 2] b IS[N 1]

which is the same result. Thus, INS(ISR(N)) = ISR(INS(N)). Now consider the operation of inverse mix column followed by add key IMC1AK1(N)2 where the round key K1 consists of the nibbles (k0,0, k1,0, k0,1, k1,1). Then a

9 2

2 k b a a 0,0 9 k1,0

= a

91k0,0 䊝 N02 䊝 21K1,0 䊝 N12 21k0,0 䊝 N02 䊝 91K1,0 䊝 N12

= a

k0,1 N b䊝a 0 k1,1 N1

N2 9 bb = a N3 2

19k0,0 䊝 2k1,02 䊝 19N0 䊝 2N12 12k0,0 䊝 9k1,02 䊝 12N0 䊝 9N12

= a

19k0,0 䊝 2k1,02 12k0,0 䊝 9k1,02

= a

9 2

2 k0,0 ba 9 k1,0

2 k0,0 䊝 N0 ba 9 k1,0 䊝 N1

91k0,1 䊝 N22 䊝 21K1,1 䊝 N32 b 21k0,1 䊝 N22 䊝 91K1,1 䊝 N32

19k0,1 䊝 2k1,12 䊝 19N2 䊝 2N32 b 12k0,1 䊝 9k1,12 䊝 12N2 䊝 9N32

19k0,1 䊝 2k1,12 19N0 䊝 2N12 b䊝a 12k0,1 䊝 9k1,12 12N0 䊝 9N12

k0,1 9 b䊝a k1,1 2

k0,1 䊝 N2 b k1,1 䊝 N3

2 N0 ba 9 N1

19N2 䊝 2N32 b 12N2 䊝 9N32

N2 b N3

All of these steps make use of the properties of finite field arithmetic. The result is that IMC(AK1(N)) = IMC(K1) 䊝 IMC(N). Now let us define the inverse round key for round 1 to be IMC(K1) and the inverse add key operation IAK1 to be the bitwise XOR of the inverse round key with the state vector. Then we have IMC(AK1(N)) = IAK1(IMC(N)). As a result, we can write the following: Encryption: Decryption: Decryption:

AK2 ⴰ SR ⴰ NS ⴰ AK1 ⴰ MC ⴰ SR ⴰ NS ⴰ AK0 AK0 ⴰ INS ⴰ ISR ⴰ IMC ⴰ AK1 ⴰ INS ⴰ ISR ⴰ AK2 AK0 ⴰ ISR ⴰ INS ⴰ AIMC(K1) ⴰ IMC ⴰ ISR ⴰ INS ⴰ AK2

Both encryption and decryption now follow the same sequence. Note that this derivation would not work as effectively if round 2 of the encryption algorithm included the MC function. In that case, we would have Encryption: Decryption:

AK2 ⴰ MC ⴰ SR ⴰ NS ⴰ AK1 ⴰ MC ⴰ SR ⴰ NS ⴰ AK0 AK0 ⴰ INS ⴰ ISR ⴰ IMC ⴰ AK1 ⴰ INS ⴰ ISR ⴰ IMC ⴰ AK2

There is now no way to interchange pairs of operations in the decryption algorithm so as to achieve the same structure as the encryption algorithm.

CHAPTER

BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION 6.1

Multiple Encryption and Triple DES Double DES Triple DES with Two Keys Triple DES with Three Keys

6.2

Electronic Code Book

6.3

Cipher Block Chaining Mode

6.4

Cipher Feedback Mode

6.5

Output Feedback Mode

6.6

Counter Mode

6.7

XTS-AES Mode for Block-Oriented Storage Devices Storage Encryption Requirements Operation on a Single Block Operation on a Sector

192

6.8

Recommended Web Site

6.9

Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

6.1 / MULTIPLE ENCRYPTION AND TRIPLE DES

193

Many savages at the present day regard their names as vital parts of themselves, and therefore take great pains to conceal their real names, lest these should give to evil-disposed persons a handle by which to injure their owners. —The Golden Bough, Sir James George Frazer

KEY POINTS ◆

◆ ◆

◆

◆

Multiple encryption is a technique in which an encryption algorithm is used multiple times. In the first instance, plaintext is converted to ciphertext using the encryption algorithm. This ciphertext is then used as input and the algorithm is applied again. This process may be repeated through any number of stages. Triple DES makes use of three stages of the DES algorithm, using a total of two or three distinct keys. A mode of operation is a technique for enhancing the effect of a cryptographic algorithm or adapting the algorithm for an application, such as applying a block cipher to a sequence of data blocks or a data stream. Five modes of operation have been standardized by NIST for use with symmetric block ciphers such as DES and AES: electronic codebook mode, cipher block chaining mode, cipher feedback mode, output feedback mode, and counter mode. Another important mode, XTS-AES, has been standardized by the IEEE Security in Storage Working Group (P1619). The standard describes a method of encryption for data stored in sector-based devices where the threat model includes possible access to stored data by the adversary.

This chapter continues our discussion of symmetric ciphers. We begin with the topic of multiple encryption, looking in particular at the most widely used multiple-encryption scheme: triple DES. The chapter next turns to the subject of block cipher modes of operation.We find that there are a number of different ways to apply a block cipher to plaintext, each with its own advantages and particular applications.

6.1 MULTIPLE ENCRYPTION AND TRIPLE DES Given the potential vulnerability of DES to a brute-force attack, there has been considerable interest in finding an alternative. One approach is to design a completely new algorithm, of which AES is a prime example. Another alternative, which would preserve the existing investment in software and equipment, is to use multiple encryption with DES and multiple keys. We begin by examining the

194

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION

simplest example of this second alternative. We then look at the widely accepted triple DES (3DES) approach.

Double DES The simplest form of multiple encryption has two encryption stages and two keys (Figure 6.1a). Given a plaintext P and two encryption keys K1 and K2, ciphertext C is generated as C = E(K2, E(K1, P)) Decryption requires that the keys be applied in reverse order: P = D(K1, D(K2, C)) For DES, this scheme apparently involves a key length of 56 * 2 = 112 bits, resulting in a dramatic increase in cryptographic strength. But we need to examine the algorithm more closely.

K1

K2

X

E

P

E

C

Encryption K2

K1

X

D

C

D

P

Decryption

(a) Double encryption K1

P

E

K2

A

D

K1

B

E

C

Encryption

C

D

K1

K2

K1

B

E

A

Decryption

(b) Triple encryption Figure 6.1

Multiple Encryption

D

P

6.1 / MULTIPLE ENCRYPTION AND TRIPLE DES

195

REDUCTION TO A SINGLE STAGE Suppose it were true for DES, for all 56-bit key values, that given any two keys K1 and K2, it would be possible to find a key K3 such that E(K2, E(K1, P)) = E(K3, P)

(6.1)

If this were the case, then double encryption, and indeed any number of stages of multiple encryption with DES, would be useless because the result would be equivalent to a single encryption with a single 56-bit key. On the face of it, it does not appear that Equation (6.1) is likely to hold. Consider that encryption with DES is a mapping of 64-bit blocks to 64-bit blocks. In fact, the mapping can be viewed as a permutation. That is, if we consider all 264 possible input blocks, DES encryption with a specific key will map each block into a unique 64-bit block. Otherwise, if, say, two given input blocks mapped to the same output block, then decryption to recover the original plaintext would be impossible. With 264 possible inputs, how many different mappings are there that generate a permutation of the input blocks? The value is easily seen to be 20

(264)! = 10347380000000000000000 7 (1010 ) On the other hand, DES defines one mapping for each different key, for a total number of mappings: 256 6 1017 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that if DES is used twice with different keys, it will produce one of the many mappings that are not defined by a single application of DES. Although there was much supporting evidence for this assumption, it was not until 1992 that the assumption was proven [CAMP92]. MEET-IN-THE-MIDDLE ATTACK Thus, the use of double DES results in a mapping that is not equivalent to a single DES encryption. But there is a way to attack this scheme, one that does not depend on any particular property of DES but that will work against any block encryption cipher. The algorithm, known as a meet-in-the-middle attack, was first described in [DIFF77]. It is based on the observation that, if we have C = E(K2, E(K1, P)) then (see Figure 6.1a) X = E(K1, P) = D(K2, C) Given a known pair, (P, C), the attack proceeds as follows. First, encrypt P for all 256 possible values of K1. Store these results in a table and then sort the table by the values of X. Next, decrypt C using all 256 possible values of K2. As each decryption is produced, check the result against the table for a match. If a match occurs, then test the two resulting keys against a new known plaintext–ciphertext pair. If the two keys produce the correct ciphertext, accept them as the correct keys. For any given plaintext P, there are 264 possible ciphertext values that could be produced by double DES. Double DES uses, in effect, a 112-bit key, so that

196

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION

there are 2112 possible keys. Therefore, on average, for a given plaintext P , the number of different 112-bit keys that will produce a given ciphertext C is 2112/264 = 248. Thus, the foregoing procedure will produce about 248 false alarms on the first (P, C) pair. A similar argument indicates that with an additional 64 bits of known plaintext and ciphertext, the false alarm rate is reduced to 248 - 64 = 2 - 16. Put another way, if the meet-in-the-middle attack is performed on two blocks of known plaintext–ciphertext, the probability that the correct keys are determined is 1 - 2 - 16. The result is that a known plaintext attack will succeed against double DES, which has a key size of 112 bits, with an effort on the order of 256, which is not much more than the 255 required for single DES.

Triple DES with Two Keys An obvious counter to the meet-in-the-middle attack is to use three stages of encryption with three different keys. This raises the cost of the meet-in-the-middle attack to 2112 , which is beyond what is practical now and far into the future. However, it has the drawback of requiring a key length of 56 * 3 = 168 bits, which may be somewhat unwieldy. As an alternative, Tuchman proposed a triple encryption method that uses only two keys [TUCH79]. The function follows an encrypt-decrypt-encrypt (EDE) sequence (Figure 6.1b): C = E(K1, D(K2, E(K1, P))) P = D(K1, E(K2, D(K1, C))) There is no cryptographic significance to the use of decryption for the second stage. Its only advantage is that it allows users of 3DES to decrypt data encrypted by users of the older single DES: C = E(K1, D(K1, E(K1, P))) = E(K1, P) P = D(K1, E(K1, D(K1, C))) = D(K1, C) 3DES with two keys is a relatively popular alternative to DES and has been adopted for use in the key management standards ANS X9.17 and ISO 8732.1 Currently, there are no practical cryptanalytic attacks on 3DES. Coppersmith [COPP94] notes that the cost of a brute-force key search on 3DES is on the order of 2112 L (5 * 1033) and estimates that the cost of differential cryptanalysis suffers an exponential growth, compared to single DES, exceeding 1052. It is worth looking at several proposed attacks on 3DES that, although not practical, give a flavor for the types of attacks that have been considered and that could form the basis for more successful future attacks. The first serious proposal came from Merkle and Hellman [MERK81]. Their plan involves finding plaintext values that produce a first intermediate value of A = 0 1 American National Standard (ANS): Financial Institution Key Management (Wholesale). From its title, X9.17 appears to be a somewhat obscure standard. Yet a number of techniques specified in this standard have been adopted for use in other standards and applications, as we shall see throughout this book.

6.1 / MULTIPLE ENCRYPTION AND TRIPLE DES

197

(Figure 6.1b) and then using the meet-in-the-middle attack to determine the two keys. The level of effort is 256, but the technique requires 256 chosen plaintext–ciphertext pairs, which is a number unlikely to be provided by the holder of the keys. A known-plaintext attack is outlined in [VANO90]. This method is an improvement over the chosen-plaintext approach but requires more effort. The attack is based on the observation that if we know A and C (Figure 6.1b), then the problem reduces to that of an attack on double DES. Of course, the attacker does not know A, even if P and C are known, as long as the two keys are unknown. However, the attacker can choose a potential value of A and then try to find a known (P, C) pair that produces A. The attack proceeds as follows. 1. Obtain n (P, C) pairs.This is the known plaintext. Place these in a table (Table 1) sorted on the values of P (Figure 6.2b). 2. Pick an arbitrary value a for A, and create a second table (Figure 6.2c) with entries defined in the following fashion. For each of the 256 possible keys K1 = i, calculate the plaintext value Pi that produces a: Pi = D(i, a) For each Pi that matches an entry in Table 1, create an entry in Table 2 consisting of the K1 value and the value of B that is produced for the (P, C) pair from Table 1, assuming that value of K1: B = D(i, C) At the end of this step, sort Table 2 on the values of B. j

i

Pi

a

E

D

i

Bj

E

Ci

(a) Two-key triple encryption with candidate pair of keys Pi

Ci

Bj

Key i

(c) Table of intermediate (b) Table of n known values and candidate plaintext-ciphertext keys pairs, sorted on P Figure 6.2 Known-Plaintext Attack on Triple DES

198

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION

3. We now have a number of candidate values of K1 in Table 2 and are in a position to search for a value of K2. For each of the 256 possible keys K2 = j, calculate the second intermediate value for our chosen value of a: Bj = D(j, a) At each step, look up Bj in Table 2. If there is a match, then the corresponding key i from Table 2 plus this value of j are candidate values for the unknown keys (K1, K2).Why? Because we have found a pair of keys (i, j) that produce a known (P, C) pair (Figure 6.2a). 4. Test each candidate pair of keys (i, j) on a few other plaintext–ciphertext pairs. If a pair of keys produces the desired ciphertext, the task is complete. If no pair succeeds, repeat from step 1 with a new value of a. For a given known (P, C), the probability of selecting the unique value of a that leads to success is 1/264. Thus, given n (P, C) pairs, the probability of success for a single selected value of a is n/264 . A basic result from probability theory is that the expected number of draws required to draw one red ball out of a bin containing n red balls and N - n green balls is (N + 1)/(n + 1) if the balls are not replaced. So the expected number of values of a that must be tried is, for large n, 264 + 1 264 L n n + 1 Thus, the expected running time of the attack is on the order of

A 256 B

264 = 2120 - log2n n

Triple DES with Three Keys Although the attacks just described appear impractical, anyone using two-key 3DES may feel some concern. Thus, many researchers now feel that three-key 3DES is the preferred alternative (e.g., [KALI96a]). Three-key 3DES has an effective key length of 168 bits and is defined as C = E(K3, D(K2, E(K1, P))) Backward compatibility with DES is provided by putting K3 = K2 or K1 = K2. A number of Internet-based applications have adopted three-key 3DES, including PGP and S/MIME, both discussed in Chapter 18.

6.2 ELECTRONIC CODE BOOK A block cipher takes a fixed-length block of text of length b bits and a key as input and produces a b-bit block of ciphertext. If the amount of plaintext to be encrypted is greater than b bits, then the block cipher can still be used by breaking the plaintext

6.2 / ELECTRONIC CODE BOOK

199

up into b-bit blocks. When multiple blocks of plaintext are encrypted using the same key, a number of security issues arise. To apply a block cipher in a variety of applications, five modes of operation have been defined by NIST (SP 800-38A). In essence, a mode of operation is a technique for enhancing the effect of a cryptographic algorithm or adapting the algorithm for an application, such as applying a block cipher to a sequence of data blocks or a data stream. The five modes are intended to cover a wide variety of applications of encryption for which a block cipher could be used. These modes are intended for use with any symmetric block cipher, including triple DES and AES. The modes are summarized in Table 6.1 and described in this and the following sections. The simplest mode is the electronic codebook (ECB) mode, in which plaintext is handled one block at a time and each block of plaintext is encrypted using the same key (Figure 6.3). The term codebook is used because, for a given key, there is a unique ciphertext for every b-bit block of plaintext. Therefore, we can imagine a gigantic codebook in which there is an entry for every possible b-bit plaintext pattern showing its corresponding ciphertext. For a message longer than b bits, the procedure is simply to break the message into b -bit blocks, padding the last block if necessary. Decryption is performed one block at a time, always using the same key. In Figure 6.3, the plaintext (padded as necessary) consists of a sequence of b-bit blocks, P1, P2, Á , PN; the

Table 6.1 Block Cipher Modes of Operation Mode

Description

Typical Application

Electronic Codebook (ECB)

Each block of 64 plaintext bits is encoded independently using the same key.

• Secure transmission of single values (e.g., an encryption key)

Cipher Block Chaining (CBC)

The input to the encryption algorithm is the XOR of the next 64 bits of plaintext and the preceding 64 bits of ciphertext.

• General-purpose blockoriented transmission

Input is processed s bits at a time. Preceding ciphertext is used as input to the encryption algorithm to produce pseudorandom output, which is XORed with plaintext to produce next unit of ciphertext.

• General-purpose streamoriented transmission

Output Feedback (OFB)

Similar to CFB, except that the input to the encryption algorithm is the preceding encryption output, and full blocks are used.

• Stream-oriented transmission over noisy channel (e.g., satellite communication)

Counter (CTR)

Each block of plaintext is XORed with an encrypted counter. The counter is incremented for each subsequent block.

• General-purpose blockoriented transmission

Cipher Feedback (CFB)

• Authentication

• Authentication

• Useful for high-speed requirements

200

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION P1

K

P2

PN

K

K

Encrypt

Encrypt

Encrypt

C1

C2

CN

(a) Encryption

C1

K

C2

CN

K

K

Decrypt

Decrypt

Decrypt

P1

P2

PN

(b) Decryption Figure 6.3

Electronic Codebook (ECB) Mode

corresponding sequence of ciphertext blocks is C1, C2, Á , CN . We can define ECB mode as follows. ECB

Cj = E(K, Pj)

j = 1, Á , N

Pj = D(K, Cj)

j = 1, Á , N

The ECB method is ideal for a short amount of data, such as an encryption key. Thus, if you want to transmit a DES or AES key securely, ECB is the appropriate mode to use. The most significant characteristic of ECB is that if the same b-bit block of plaintext appears more than once in the message, it always produces the same ciphertext. For lengthy messages, the ECB mode may not be secure. If the message is highly structured, it may be possible for a cryptanalyst to exploit these regularities. For example, if it is known that the message always starts out with certain predefined fields, then the cryptanalyst may have a number of known plaintext–ciphertext pairs to work with. If the message has repetitive elements with a period of repetition a multiple of b bits, then these elements can be identified by the analyst. This may help in the analysis or may provide an opportunity for substituting or rearranging blocks.

6.3 / CIPHER BLOCK CHAINING MODE

201

6.3 CIPHER BLOCK CHAINING MODE To overcome the security deficiencies of ECB, we would like a technique in which the same plaintext block, if repeated, produces different ciphertext blocks. A simple way to satisfy this requirement is the cipher block chaining (CBC) mode (Figure 6.4). In this scheme, the input to the encryption algorithm is the XOR of the current plaintext block and the preceding ciphertext block; the same key is used for each block. In effect, we have chained together the processing of the sequence of plaintext blocks. The input to the encryption function for each plaintext block bears no fixed relationship to the plaintext block.Therefore, repeating patterns of b bits are not exposed.As with the ECB mode, the CBC mode requires that the last block be padded to a full b bits if it is a partial block. For decryption, each cipher block is passed through the decryption algorithm. The result is XORed with the preceding ciphertext block to produce the plaintext block. To see that this works, we can write Cj = E(K, [Cj - 1 䊝 Pj])

P1

IV

P2

PN CN–1

K

K

K

Encrypt

Encrypt

Encrypt

C1

C2

CN

(a) Encryption

C1

C2

K

K Decrypt

CN

K Decrypt

Decrypt

IV CN–1

P1

P2

(b) Decryption Figure 6.4

Cipher Block Chaining (CFB) Mode

PN

202

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION

Then D(K, Cj) = D(K, E(K, [Cj - 1 䊝 Pj])) D(K, Cj) = Cj - 1 䊝 Pj Cj - 1 䊝 D(K, Cj) = Cj - 1 䊝 Cj - 1 䊝 Pj = Pj To produce the first block of ciphertext, an initialization vector (IV) is XORed with the first block of plaintext. On decryption, the IV is XORed with the output of the decryption algorithm to recover the first block of plaintext. The IV is a data block that is that same size as the cipher block. We can define CBC mode as

CBC

C1 = E(K, [P1 䊝 IV])

P1 = D(K, C1) 䊝 IV

Cj = E(K, [Pj 䊝 Cj - 1]) j = 2, Á , N

Pj = D(K, Cj) 䊝 Cj - 1 j = 2, Á , N

The IV must be known to both the sender and receiver but be unpredictable by a third party. In particular, for any given plaintext, it must not be possible to predict the IV that will be associated to the plaintext in advance of the generation of the IV. For maximum security, the IV should be protected against unauthorized changes. This could be done by sending the IV using ECB encryption. One reason for protecting the IV is as follows: If an opponent is able to fool the receiver into using a different value for IV, then the opponent is able to invert selected bits in the first block of plaintext. To see this, consider C1 = E(K, [IV 䊝 P1]) P1 = IV 䊝 D(K, C1) Now use the notation that X[i] denotes the ith bit of the b-bit quantity X. Then P1[i] = IV[i] 䊝 D(K, C1)[i] Then, using the properties of XOR, we can state P1[i]¿ = IV[i]¿ 䊝 D(K, C1)[i] where the prime notation denotes bit complementation. This means that if an opponent can predictably change bits in IV, the corresponding bits of the received value of P1 can be changed. For other possible attacks based on prior knowledge of IV, see [VOYD83]. So long as it is unpredictable, the specific choice of IV is unimportant. Sp800-38a recommends two possible methods: The first method is to apply the encryption function, under the same key that is used for the encryption of the plaintext, to a nonce.2 The nonce must be a data block that is unique to each execution of the encryption operation. For example, the nonce may be a counter, a timestamp, or

2

NIST SP-800-90 (Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators) defines nonce as follows: A time-varying value that has at most a negligible chance of repeating, e.g., a random value that is generated anew for each use, a timestamp, a sequence number, or some combination of these.

6.4 / CIPHER FEEDBACK MODE

203

a message number. The second method is to generate a random data block using a random number generator. In conclusion, because of the chaining mechanism of CBC, it is an appropriate mode for encrypting messages of length greater than b bits. In addition to its use to achieve confidentiality, the CBC mode can be used for authentication. This use is described in Chapter 12.

6.4 CIPHER FEEDBACK MODE For AES, DES, or any block cipher, encryption is performed on a block of b bits. In the case of DES, b = 64 and in the case of AES, b = 128. However, it is possible to convert a block cipher into a stream cipher, using one of the three modes to be discussed in this and the next two sections: cipher feedback (CFB) mode, output feedback (OFB) mode, and counter (CTR) mode. A stream cipher eliminates the need to pad a message to be an integral number of blocks. It also can operate in real time. Thus, if a character stream is being transmitted, each character can be encrypted and transmitted immediately using a character-oriented stream cipher. One desirable property of a stream cipher is that the ciphertext be of the same length as the plaintext. Thus, if 8-bit characters are being transmitted, each character should be encrypted to produce a ciphertext output of 8 bits. If more than 8 bits are produced, transmission capacity is wasted. Figure 6.5 depicts the CFB scheme. In the figure, it is assumed that the unit of transmission is s bits; a common value is s = 8. As with CBC, the units of plaintext are chained together, so that the ciphertext of any plaintext unit is a function of all the preceding plaintext. In this case, rather than blocks of b bits, the plaintext is divided into segments of s bits. First, consider encryption. The input to the encryption function is a b-bit shift register that is initially set to some initialization vector (IV). The leftmost (most significant) s bits of the output of the encryption function are XORed with the first segment of plaintext P1 to produce the first unit of ciphertext C1, which is then transmitted. In addition, the contents of the shift register are shifted left by s bits, and C1 is placed in the rightmost (least significant) s bits of the shift register. This process continues until all plaintext units have been encrypted. For decryption, the same scheme is used, except that the received ciphertext unit is XORed with the output of the encryption function to produce the plaintext unit. Note that it is the encryption function that is used, not the decryption function. This is easily explained. Let MSBs(X) be defined as the most significant s bits of X. Then C1 = P1 䊝 MSBs[E(K, IV)] Therefore, by rearranging terms: P1 = C1 䊝 MSBs[E(K, IV)] The same reasoning holds for subsequent steps in the process. We can define CFB mode as follows.

204

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION CN–1

Shift register

IV

b – s bits

K

Shift register

s bits

b – s bits

K Encrypt

Encrypt

Select Discard s bits b – s bits

Encrypt

Select Discard s bits b – s bits

s bits P1

s bits

K

Select Discard s bits b – s bits

s bits P2

s bits PN

C1

C2

CN

s bits

s bits

s bits

(a) Encryption CN–1

Shift register

IV

b – s bits

K

Shift register

s bits

b – s bits

K Encrypt

Encrypt

Select Discard s bits b – s bits

s bits

K Encrypt

Select Discard s bits b – s bits

Select Discard s bits b – s bits

C1

C2

CN

s bits

s bits

s bits

P1

P2

PN

s bits

s bits

s bits

(b) Decryption Figure 6.5

s-bit Cipher Feedback (CFB) Mode

I1 = IV CFB

Ij = LSBb - s(Ij - 1) 7 Cj - 1 j = 2, Á , N

I1 = IV

Ij = LSBb - s(Ij - 1) 7 Cj - 1 j = 2, Á , N

Oj = E(K, Ij)

j = 1, Á , N

Oj = E(K, Ij)

j = 1, Á , N

Cj = Pj 䊝 MSBs(Oj)

j = 1, Á , N

Pj = Cj 䊝 MSBs(Oj)

j = 1, Á , N

Although CFB can be viewed as a stream cipher, it does not conform to the typical construction of a stream cipher. In a typical stream cipher, the cipher takes as input some initial value and a key and generates a stream of bits, which is then XORed with the plaintext bits (see Figure 3.1). In the case of CFB, the stream of bits that is XORed with the plaintext also depends on the plaintext.

6.5 / OUTPUT FEEDBACK MODE

205

6.5 OUTPUT FEEDBACK MODE The output feedback (OFB) mode is similar in structure to that of CFB. As can be seen in Figure 6.6, it is the output of the encryption function that is fed back to the shift register in OFB, whereas in CFB, the ciphertext unit is fed back to the shift register. The other difference is that the OFB mode operates on full blocks of plaintext and ciphertext, not on an s-bit subset. Encryption can be expressed as Cj = Pj 䊝 E(K, [Cj - i 䊝 Pj - 1]) By rearranging terms, we can demonstrate that decryption works. Pj = Cj 䊝 E(K, [Cj - 1 䊝 Pj - 1])

Nonce K

K

K

Encrypt

Encrypt

P1

Encrypt

P2

PN

C1

C2

CN

(a) Encryption

Nonce K

K

K

Encrypt

C1

Encrypt

C2

CN

P1

P2

(b) Decryption Figure 6.6

Encrypt

Output Feedback (OFB) Mode

PN

206

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION

We can define OFB mode as follows. I1 = Nonce OFB

I1 = Nonce

Ij = Oj - 1

j = 2, Á , N

Ij = LSBb - s(Ij - 1) 7 Cj - 1 j = 2, Á , N

Oj = E(K, Ij)

j = 1, Á , N

Oj = E(K, Ij)

j = 1, Á , N

Cj = Pj 䊝 Oj

j = 1, Á , N - 1

Pj = Cj 䊝 Oj

j = 1, Á , N - 1

C*N = P*N 䊝 MSBu(ON)

P*N = C*N 䊝 MSBu(ON)

Let the size of a block be b. If the last block of plaintext contains u bits (indicated by *), with u 6 b, the most significant u bits of the last output block ON are used for the XOR operation; the remaining b-u bits of the last output block are discarded. As with CBC and CFB, the OFB mode requires an initialization vector. In the case of OFB, the IV must be a nonce; that is, the IV must be unique to each execution of the encryption operation. The reason for this is that the sequence of encryption output blocks, Oi, depends only on the key and the IV and does not depend on the plaintext. Therefore, for a given key and IV, the stream of output bits used to XOR with the stream of plaintext bits is fixed. If two different messages had an identical block of plaintext in the identical position, then an attacker would be able to determine that portion of the Oi stream. One advantage of the OFB method is that bit errors in transmission do not propagate. For example, if a bit error occurs in C1, only the recovered value of P1 is affected; subsequent plaintext units are not corrupted. With CFB, C1 also serves as input to the shift register and therefore causes additional corruption downstream. The disadvantage of OFB is that it is more vulnerable to a message stream modification attack than is CFB. Consider that complementing a bit in the ciphertext complements the corresponding bit in the recovered plaintext. Thus, controlled changes to the recovered plaintext can be made. This may make it possible for an opponent, by making the necessary changes to the checksum portion of the message as well as to the data portion, to alter the ciphertext in such a way that it is not detected by an error-correcting code. For a further discussion, see [VOYD83]. OFB has the structure of a typical stream cipher, because the cipher generates a stream of bits as a function of an initial value and a key, and that stream of bits is XORed with the plaintext bits (see Figure 3.1). The generated stream that is XORed with the plaintext is itself independent of the plaintext; this is highlighted by dashed boxes in Figure 6.6. One distinction from the stream ciphers we discuss in Chapter 7 is that OFB encrypts plaintext a full block at a time, where typically a block is 64 or 128 bits. Many stream ciphers encrypt one byte at a time.

6.6 COUNTER MODE Although interest in the counter (CTR) mode has increased recently with applications to ATM (asynchronous transfer mode) network security and IP sec (IP security), this mode was proposed early on (e.g., [DIFF79]). Figure 6.7 depicts the CTR mode. A counter equal to the plaintext block size is used. The only requirement stated in SP 800-38A is that the counter value must be

6.6 / COUNTER MODE

Counter 1

Counter 2

K

Counter N

K

K

Encrypt

Encrypt

P1

207

Encrypt

P2

PN

C1

C2

CN

(a) Encryption

Counter 1

Counter 2

K

Counter N

K

K

Encrypt

Encrypt

C1

Encrypt

C2

CN

P1

P2

PN

(b) Decryption Figure 6.7

Counter (CTR) Mode

different for each plaintext block that is encrypted. Typically, the counter is initialized to some value and then incremented by 1 for each subsequent block (modulo 2b, where b is the block size). For encryption, the counter is encrypted and then XORed with the plaintext block to produce the ciphertext block; there is no chaining. For decryption, the same sequence of counter values is used, with each encrypted counter XORed with a ciphertext block to recover the corresponding plaintext block. Thus, the initial counter value must be made available for decryption. Given a sequence of counters T1, T2, Á , TN, we can define CTR mode as follows.

CTR

Cj = Pj 䊝 E(K, Tj) C*N

=

P*N

j = 1, Á , N - 1

䊝 MSBu[E(K, TN)]

Pj = Cj 䊝 E(K, Tj) P*N

=

C*N

j = 1, Á , N - 1

䊝 MSBu[E(K, TN)]

208

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION

For the last plaintext block, which may be a partial block of u bits, the most significant u bits of the last output block are used for the XOR operation; the remaining b-u bits are discarded. Unlike the ECB, CBC, and CFB modes, we do not need to use padding because of the structure of the CTR mode. As with the OFB mode, the initial counter value must be a nonce; that is, T1 must be different for all of the messages encrypted using the same key. Further, all Ti values across all messages must be unique. If, contrary to this requirement, a counter value is used multiple times, then the confidentiality of all of the plaintext blocks corresponding to that counter value may be compromised. In particular, if any plaintext block that is encrypted using a given counter value is known, then the output of the encryption function can be determined easily from the associated ciphertext block. This output allows any other plaintext blocks that are encrypted using the same counter value to be easily recovered from their associated ciphertext blocks. One way to ensure the uniqueness of counter values is to continue to increment the counter value by 1 across messages. That is, the first counter value of the each message is one more than the last counter value of the preceding message. [LIPM00] lists the following advantages of CTR mode. • Hardware efficiency: Unlike the three chaining modes, encryption (or decryption) in CTR mode can be done in parallel on multiple blocks of plaintext or ciphertext. For the chaining modes, the algorithm must complete the computation on one block before beginning on the next block. This limits the maximum throughput of the algorithm to the reciprocal of the time for one execution of block encryption or decryption. In CTR mode, the throughput is only limited by the amount of parallelism that is achieved. • Software efficiency: Similarly, because of the opportunities for parallel execution in CTR mode, processors that support parallel features, such as aggressive pipelining, multiple instruction dispatch per clock cycle, a large number of registers, and SIMD instructions, can be effectively utilized. • Preprocessing: The execution of the underlying encryption algorithm does not depend on input of the plaintext or ciphertext. Therefore, if sufficient memory is available and security is maintained, preprocessing can be used to prepare the output of the encryption boxes that feed into the XOR functions, as in Figure 6.7. When the plaintext or ciphertext input is presented, then the only computation is a series of XORs. Such a strategy greatly enhances throughput. • Random access: The ith block of plaintext or ciphertext can be processed in random-access fashion. With the chaining modes, block Ci cannot be computed until the i – 1 prior block are computed. There may be applications in which a ciphertext is stored and it is desired to decrypt just one block; for such applications, the random access feature is attractive. • Provable security: It can be shown that CTR is at least as secure as the other modes discussed in this section. • Simplicity: Unlike ECB and CBC modes, CTR mode requires only the implementation of the encryption algorithm and not the decryption algorithm. This matters most when the decryption algorithm differs substantially from the encryption algorithm, as it does for AES. In addition, the decryption key scheduling need not be implemented.

6.6 / COUNTER MODE

209

Note that, with the exception of ECB, all of the NIST-approved block cipher modes of operation involve feedback. This is clearly seen in Figure 6.8. To highlight the feedback mechanism, it is useful to think of the encryption function as taking input from a input register whose length equals the encryption block length and with output stored in an output register. The input register is updated one block at a time by the feedback mechanism. After each update, the encryption algorithm is executed, producing a result in the output register. Meanwhile, a block of plaintext is accessed. Note that both OFB and CTR produce output that is independent of both the plaintext and the ciphertext. Thus, they are natural candidates for stream ciphers that encrypt plaintext by XOR one full block at a time.

Plaintext block Input register Key Input register

Encrypt Key

Encrypt

Output register

Plaintext block

Output register

Ciphertext

(a) Cipher block chaining (CBC) mode

Ciphertext

(b) Cipher feedback (CFB) mode

Counter Input register

Input register Key

Key

Encrypt

Encrypt

Output register

Output register

Plaintext block Ciphertext

(c) Output feedback (OFB) mode Figure 6.8

Plaintext block Ciphertext

(d) Counter (CTR) mode

Feedback Characteristic of Modes of Operation

210

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION

6.7 XTS-AES MODE FOR BLOCK-ORIENTED STORAGE DEVICES NIST is currently in the process of approving an additional block cipher mode of operation, XTS-AES. This mode is also an IEEE standard, IEEE Std 1619-2007, which was developed by the IEEE Security in Storage Working Group (P1619). The standard describes a method of encryption for data stored in sector-based devices where the threat model includes possible access to stored data by the adversary. The XTS-AES mode is based on the concept of a tweakable block cipher, introduced in [LISK02]. The form of this concept used in XTS-AES was first described in [ROGA04]. The standard has received widespread industry support.

Storage Encryption Requirements The requirements for encrypting stored data, also referred to as “data at rest” differ somewhat from those for transmitted data. The P1619 standard was designed to have the following characteristics: 1. The ciphertext is freely available for an attacker. Among the circumstances that lead to this situation: a. A group of users has authorized access to a database. Some of the records in the database are encrypted so that only specific users can successfully read/write them. Other users can retrieve an encrypted record but are unable to read it without the key. b. An unauthorized user manages to gain access to encrypted records. c. A data disk or laptop is stolen, giving the adversary access to the encrypted data. 2. The data layout is not changed on the storage medium and in transit. The encrypted data must be the same size as the plaintext data. 3. Data are accessed in fixed sized blocks, independently from each other.That is, an authorized user may access one or more blocks in any order. 4. Encryption is performed in 16-byte blocks, independently from other blocks (except the last two plaintext blocks of a sector, if its size is not a multiple of 16 bytes). 5. There are no other metadata used, except the location of the data blocks within the whole data set. 6. The same plaintext is encrypted to different ciphertexts at different locations, but always to the same ciphertext when written to the same location again. 7. A standard conformant device can be constructed for decryption of data encrypted by another standard conformant device. The P1619 group considered some of the existing modes of operation for use with stored data. For CTR mode, an adversary with write access to the encrypted media can flip any bit of the plaintext simply by flipping the corresponding ciphertext bit. Next, consider requirement 6 and the use of CBC. To enforce the requirement that the same plaintext encrypt to different ciphertext in different locations, the IV could be derived from the sector number. Each sector contains multiple blocks. An adversary with read/write access to the encrypted disk can copy a ciphertext sector

6.7 / XTS-AES MODE FOR BLOCK-ORIENTED STORAGE DEVICES

211

from one position to another, and an application reading the sector off the new location will still get the same plaintext sector (except perhaps the first 128 bits). For example, this means that an adversary that is allowed to read a sector from the second position but not the first can find the content of the sector in the first position by manipulating the ciphertext. Another weakness is that an adversary can flip any bit of the plaintext by flipping the corresponding ciphertext bit of the previous block, with the side-effect of “randomizing” the previous block.

Operation on a Single Block Figure 6.9 shows the encryption and decryption of a single block. The operation involves two instances of the AES algorithm with two keys. The following parameters are associated with the algorithm.

i

j

Pj

Key2 T

AES Encrypt

PP AES Encrypt

Key1

CC

Cj

(a) Encryption

i

j

Cj

Key2 AES Encrypt

T CC AES Decrypt PP

Pj

(b) Decryption Figure 6.9

XTS-AES Operation on Single Block

Key1

212

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION

Key Pj

Cj j i a aj 䊝 䊟

The 256 or 512 bit XTS-AES key; this is parsed as a concatenation of two fields of equal size called Key1 and Key2, such that Key = Key1 7 Key2. The jth block of plaintext. All blocks except possibly the final block have a length of 128 bits. A plaintext data unit, typically a disk sector, consists of a sequence of plaintext blocks P1, P2, Á , Pm. The jth block of ciphertext. All blocks except possibly the final block have a length of 128 bits. The sequential number of the 128-bit block inside the data unit. The value of the 128-bit tweak. Each data unit (sector) is assigned a tweak value that is a nonnegative integer. The tweak values are assigned consecutively, starting from an arbitrary nonnegative integer. A primitive element of GF(2128) that corresponds to polynomial x (i.e., 0000 Á 0102). a multiplied by itself j times, in GF(2128). Bitwise XOR. Modular multiplication of two polynomials with binary coefficients modulo x128 + x7 + x2 + x + 1. Thus, this is multiplication in GF(2128).

In essence, the parameter j functions much like the counter in CTR mode. It assures that if the same plaintext block appears at two different positions within a data unit, it will encrypt to two different ciphertext blocks. The parameter i functions much like a nonce at the data unit level. It assures that, if the same plaintext block appears at the same position in two different data units, it will encrypt to two different ciphertext blocks. More generally, it assures that the same plaintext data unit will encrypt to two different ciphertext data units for two different data unit positions. The encryption and decryption of a single block can be described as

XTS-AES block operation

T PP CC C

= = = =

E(K2, i) 䊟 aj P䊝T E(K1, PP) CC 䊝 T

T CC PP P

= = = =

E(K2, i) 䊟 aj C䊝T D(K1, CC) PP 䊝 T

To see that decryption recovers the plaintext, let us expand the last line of both encryption and decryption. For encryption, we have C = CC 䊝 T = E(K1, PP) 䊝 T = E(K1, P 䊝 T) 䊝 T and for decryption, we have P = PP 䊝 T = D(K1, CC) 䊝 T = D(K1, C 䊝 T) 䊝 T Now, we substitute for C: P = D(K1, C 䊝 T) 䊝 T = D(K1, [E(K1, P 䊝 T) 䊝 T] 䊝 T) 䊝 T = D(K1, E(K1, P 䊝 T)) 䊝 T = (P 䊝 T) 䊝 T = P

213

6.7 / XTS-AES MODE FOR BLOCK-ORIENTED STORAGE DEVICES

Operation on a Sector The plaintext of a sector or data unit is organized into blocks of 128 bits. Blocks are labeled P0, P1, Á , Pm. The last block my be null or may contain from 1 to 127 bits. In other words, the input to the XTS-AES algorithm consists of m 128-bit blocks and possibly a final partial block. For encryption and decryption, each block is treated independently and encrypted/decrypted as shown in Figure 6.9. The only exception occurs when the last block has less than 128 bits. In that case, the last two blocks are encrypted/decrypted using a ciphertext-stealing technique instead of padding. Figure 6.10 shows the scheme. Pm-1 is the last full plaintext block, and Pmis the final plaintext block, which contains s bits with 1 … s … 127. Cm-1 is the last full ciphertext block, and Cmis the final ciphertext block, which contains s bits.

P0

P1

Pm

Pm–1

CP YY

i, 1

i, 0 Key

Key XTS-AES block encryption

i, m

i, m–1 Key

XTS-AES block encryption

Key XTS-AES block encryption

XTS-AES block encryption

XX Cm C0

CP

Cm–1

C1 Cm–1

Cm

Cm–1

Cm

(a) Encryption

C0

C1

CP XX

i, 0

i, 1

Key

Key XTS-AES block decryption

i, m–1

i, m Key

XTS-AES block decryption

Key XTS-AES block decryption

XTS-AES block decryption

YY Pm P0

CP Pm–1

(b) Decryption Figure 6.10 XTS-AES Mode

Pm–1

P1 Pm

214

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION

Let us label the block encryption and decryption algorithms of Figure 6.9 as Block encryption: XTS-AES-blockEnc(K, Pj, i, j) Block decryption: XTS-AES-blockDec(K, Cj, i, j) Then, if the final block is null, XTS-AES mode is defined as follows: XTS-AES mode with null final block

XTS-AES mode with final block containing s bits

Cj = XTS-AES-blockEnc(K, Pj, i, j) j = 0, Á , m - 1 Pj = XTS-AES-blockEnc(K, Cj, i, j) j = 0, Á , m - 1 Cj = XTS-AES-blockEnc(K, Pj, i, j) j = 0, Á , m - 2 XX = XTS-AES-blockEnc(K, Pm - 1, i, m - 1) CP = LSB128 - s(XX) YY = Pm 7 CP Cm - 1 = XTS-AES-blockEnc(K, YY, i, m) Cm = MSBs(XX) Pj = XTS-AES-blockDec(K, Cj, i, j) j = 0, Á , m - 2 YY = XTS-AES-blockDec(K, Cm - 1, i, m - 1) CP = LSB128 - s(YY) XX = Cm 7 CP Pm - 1 = XTS-AES-blockDec(K, XX, i, m) Pm = MSBs(YY)

As can be seen, XTS-AES mode, like CTR mode, is suitable for parallel operation. Because there is no chaining, multiple blocks can be encrypted or decrypted simultaneously. Unlike CTR mode, XTS-AES mode includes a nonce (the parameter i) as well as a counter (parameter j).

6.8 RECOMMENDED WEB SITE

Recommended Web Site: • Block cipher modes of operation: NIST page with full information on NIST-

approved modes of operation.

6.9 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms Block cipher modes of operation cipher block chaining mode (CBC) cipher feedback mode (CFB) ciphertext stealing

counter mode (CTR) electronic codebook mode (ECB) meet-in-the-middle attack nonce

output feedback mode (OFB) Triple DES (3DES) XTS-AES mode

6.9 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

215

Review Questions 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

What is triple encryption? What is a meet-in-the-middle attack? How many keys are used in triple encryption? Why is the middle portion of 3DES a decryption rather than an encryption? Why do some block cipher modes of operation only use encryption while others use both encryption and decryption?

Problems 6.1

6.2

You want to build a hardware device to do block encryption in the cipher block chaining (CBC) mode using an algorithm stronger than DES. 3DES is a good candidate. Figure 6.11 shows two possibilities, both of which follow from the definition of CBC. Which of the two would you choose: a. For security? b. For performance? Can you suggest a security improvement to either option in Figure 6.11, using only three DES chips and some number of XOR functions? Assume you are still limited to two keys.

Pn

Pn

Cn1

K1, K2

EDE

An1

K1

E

An

Cn

Bn1

(b) One-loop CBC

K2

D

Bn

K3

Cn1

E

Cn (b) Three-loop CBC

Figure 6.11 Use of Triple DES in CBC Mode

216

CHAPTER 6 / BLOCK CIPHER OPERATION 6.3

6.4

6.5 6.6

6.7

6.8 6.9

6.10

6.11

6.12

The Merkle-Hellman attack on 3DES begins by assuming a value of A = 0 (Figure 6.1b). Then, for each of the 256 possible values of K1, the plaintext P that produces A = 0 is determined. Describe the rest of the algorithm. With the ECB mode, if there is an error in a block of the transmitted ciphertext, only the corresponding plaintext block is affected. However, in the CBC mode, this error propagates. For example, an error in the transmitted C1 (Figure 6.4) obviously corrupts P1 and P2. a. Are any blocks beyond P2 affected? b. Suppose that there is a bit error in the source version of P1 . Through how many ciphertext blocks is this error propagated? What is the effect at the receiver? Is it possible to perform encryption operations in parallel on multiple blocks of plaintext in CBC mode? How about decryption? CBC-Pad is a block cipher mode of operation used in the RC5 block cipher, but it could be used in any block cipher. CBC-Pad handles plaintext of any length. The ciphertext is longer then the plaintext by at most the size of a single block. Padding is used to assure that the plaintext input is a multiple of the block length. It is assumed that the original plaintext is an integer number of bytes. This plaintext is padded at the end by from 1 to bb bytes, where bb equals the block size in bytes. The pad bytes are all the same and set to a byte that represents the number of bytes of padding. For example, if there are 8 bytes of padding, each byte has the bit pattern 00001000. Why not allow zero bytes of padding? That is, if the original plaintext is an integer multiple of the block size, why not refrain from padding? For the ECB, CBC, and CFB modes, the plaintext must be a sequence of one or more complete data blocks (or, for CFB mode, data segments). In other words, for these three modes, the total number of bits in the plaintext must be a positive multiple of the block (or segment) size. One common method of padding, if needed, consists of a 1 bit followed by as few zero bits, possibly none, as are necessary to complete the final block. It is considered good practice for the sender to pad every message, including messages in which the final message block is already complete. What is the motivation for including a padding block when padding is not needed? If a bit error occurs in the transmission of a ciphertext character in 8-bit CFB mode, how far does the error propagate? In discussing OFB, it was mentioned that if it was known that two different messages had an identical block of plaintext in the identical position, it is possible to recover the corresponding Oi block. Show the calculation. In discussing the CTR mode, it was mentioned that if any plaintext block that is encrypted using a given counter value is known, then the output of the encryption function can be determined easily from the associated ciphertext block. Show the calculation. Padding may not always be appropriate. For example, one might wish to store the encrypted data in the same memory buffer that originally contained the plaintext. In that case, the ciphertext must be the same length as the original plaintext. A mode for that purpose is the ciphertext stealing (CTS) mode. Figure 6.12a shows an implementation of this mode. a. Explain how it works. b. Describe how to decrypt Cn-1 and Cn. Figure 6.12b shows an alternative to CTS for producing ciphertext of equal length to the plaintext when the plaintext is not an integer multiple of the block size. a. Explain the algorithm. b. Explain why CTS is preferable to this approach illustrated in Figure 6.12b.

217

6.9 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS



K

PN2

PN1

CN3





K

Encrypt

P1

IV

• • •

Encrypt

C1

K

00…0



K

Encrypt

CN

CN2

PN

Encrypt

CN1

X

(a) Ciphertext stealing mode

IV



K

PN2 (bb bits)

PN1 (bb bits)

PN (j bits)

CN3







K

Encrypt

P1 (bb bits)

Encrypt

C1 (bb bits)

• • •

K

CN2 (bb bits)

Encrypt

K

Encrypt

CN1 (bb bits)

select leftmost j bits

CN (j bits)

(b) Alternative method

Figure 6.12 Block Cipher Modes for Plaintext not a Multiple of Block Size

Programming Problems 6.13

6.14

6.15

6.16

Create software that can encrypt and decrypt in cipher block chaining mode using one of the following ciphers: affine modulo 256, Hill modulo 256, S-DES, DES. Test data for S-DES using a binary initialization vector of 1010 1010. A binary plaintext of 0000 0001 0010 0011 encrypted with a binary key of 01111 11101 should give a binary plaintext of 1111 0100 0000 1011. Decryption should work correspondingly. Create software that can encrypt and decrypt in 4-bit cipher feedback mode using one of the following ciphers: additive modulo 256, affine modulo 256, S-DES; or 8-bit cipher feedback mode using one of the following ciphers: 2  2 Hill modulo 256. Test data for S-DES using a binary initialization vector of 1010 1011. A binary plaintext of 0001 0010 0011 0100 encrypted with a binary key of 01111 11101 should give a binary plaintext of 1110 1100 1111 1010. Decryption should work correspondingly. Create software that can encrypt and decrypt in counter mode using one of the following ciphers: affine modulo 256, Hill modulo 256, S-DES. Test data for S-DES using a counter starting at 0000 0000. A binary plaintext of 0000 0001 0000 0010 0000 0100 encrypted with a binary key of 01111 11101 should give a binary plaintext of 0011 1000 0100 1111 0011 0010. Decryption should work correspondingly. Implement a differential cryptanalysis attack on 3-round S-DES.

CHAPTER

PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS 7.1

Principles of Pseudorandom Number Generation The Use of Random Numbers TRNGs, PRNGs, and PRFs PRNG Requirements Algorithm Design

7.2

Pseudorandom Number Generators Linear Congruential Generators Blum Blum Shub Generator

7.3

Pseudorandom Number Generation Using a Block Cipher PRNG Using Block Cipher Modes of Operation ANSI X9.17 PRNG

7.4

Stream Ciphers

7.5

RC4 Initialization of S Stream Generation Strength of RC4

7.6

True Random Number Generators Entropy Sources Skew

218

7.7

Recommended Reading and Web Sites

7.8

Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

7.1 / PRINCIPLES OF PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION

219

The comparatively late rise of the theory of probability shows how hard it is to grasp, and the many paradoxes show clearly that we, as humans, lack a well grounded intuition in this matter. In probability theory there is a great deal of art in setting up the model, in solving the problem, and in applying the results back to the real world actions that will follow. —The Art of Probability, Richard Hamming

KEY POINTS ◆

◆

A capability with application to a number of cryptographic functions is random or pseudorandom number generation. The principle requirement for this capability is that the generated number stream be unpredictable. A stream cipher is a symmetric encryption algorithm in which ciphertext output is produced bit-by-bit or byte-by-byte from a stream of plaintext input. The most widely used such cipher is RC4.

An important cryptographic function is cryptographically strong pseudorandom number generation. Pseudorandom number generators (PRNGs) are used in a variety of cryptographic and security applications. We begin the chapter with a look at the basic principles of PRNGs and contrast these with true random number generators (TRNGs).1 Next, we look at some common PRNGs, including PRNGs based on the use of a symmetric block cipher. The chapter then moves on to the topic of symmetric stream ciphers, which are based on the use of a PRNG. The chapter next examines the most important stream cipher, RC4. Finally, we examine TRNGs.

7.1 PRINCIPLES OF PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION Random numbers play an important role in the use of encryption for various network security applications. In this section, we provide a brief overview of the use of random numbers in cryptography and network security and then focus on the principles of pseudorandom number generation.

The Use of Random Numbers A number of network security algorithms and protocols based on cryptography make use of random binary numbers. For example, 1

A note on terminology. Some standards documents, notably NIST and ANSI, refer to a TRNG as a nondeterministic random number generator (NRNG) and a PRNG as a deterministic random number generator (DRNG).

220

CHAPTER 7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS

• Key distribution and reciprocal authentication schemes, such as those discussed in Chapters 14 and 15. In such schemes, two communicating parties cooperate by exchanging messages to distribute keys and/or authenticate each other. In many cases, nonces are used for handshaking to prevent replay attacks. The use of random numbers for the nonces frustrates an opponent’s efforts to determine or guess the nonce. • Session key generation. We will see a number of protocols in this book where a secret key for symmetric encryption is generated for use for a short period of time. This key is generally called a session key. • Generation of keys for the RSA public-key encryption algorithm (described in Chapter 9). • Generation of a bit stream for symmetric stream encryption (described in this chapter). These applications give rise to two distinct and not necessarily compatible requirements for a sequence of random numbers: randomness and unpredictability. RANDOMNESS Traditionally, the concern in the generation of a sequence of allegedly random numbers has been that the sequence of numbers be random in some welldefined statistical sense. The following two criteria are used to validate that a sequence of numbers is random: • Uniform distribution: The distribution of bits in the sequence should be uniform; that is, the frequency of occurrence of ones and zeros should be approximately equal. • Independence: No one subsequence in the sequence can be inferred from the others. Although there are well-defined tests for determining that a sequence of bits matches a particular distribution, such as the uniform distribution, there is no such test to “prove” independence. Rather, a number of tests can be applied to demonstrate if a sequence does not exhibit independence. The general strategy is to apply a number of such tests until the confidence that independence exists is sufficiently strong. In the context of our discussion, the use of a sequence of numbers that appear statistically random often occurs in the design of algorithms related to cryptography. For example, a fundamental requirement of the RSA public-key encryption scheme discussed in Chapter 9 is the ability to generate prime numbers. In general, it is difficult to determine if a given large number N is prime. A brute-force approach would be to divide N by every odd integer less than 1N. If N is on the order, say, of 10150 , which is a not uncommon occurrence in public-key cryptography, such a brute-force approach is beyond the reach of human analysts and their computers. However, a number of effective algorithms exist that test the primality of a number by using a sequence of randomly chosen integers as input to relatively simple computations. If the sequence is sufficiently long (but far, far less than 210150), the primality of a number can be determined with near certainty. This type of approach, known as randomization, crops up frequently in the design of algorithms. In essence, if a problem is too hard or time-consuming to solve exactly, a simpler, shorter

7.1 / PRINCIPLES OF PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION

221

approach based on randomization is used to provide an answer with any desired level of confidence. UNPREDICTABILITY In applications such as reciprocal authentication, session key generation, and stream ciphers, the requirement is not just that the sequence of numbers be statistically random but that the successive members of the sequence are unpredictable. With “true” random sequences, each number is statistically independent of other numbers in the sequence and therefore unpredictable. However, as is discussed shortly, true random numbers are seldom used; rather, sequences of numbers that appear to be random are generated by some algorithm. In this latter case, care must be taken that an opponent not be able to predict future elements of the sequence on the basis of earlier elements.

TRNGs, PRNGs, and PRFs Cryptographic applications typically make use of algorithmic techniques for random number generation. These algorithms are deterministic and therefore produce sequences of numbers that are not statistically random. However, if the algorithm is good, the resulting sequences will pass many reasonable tests of randomness. Such numbers are referred to as pseudorandom numbers. You may be somewhat uneasy about the concept of using numbers generated by a deterministic algorithm as if they were random numbers. Despite what might be called philosophical objections to such a practice, it generally works. As one expert on probability theory puts it [HAMM91]: For practical purposes we are forced to accept the awkward concept of “relatively random” meaning that with regard to the proposed use we can see no reason why they will not perform as if they were random (as the theory usually requires). This is highly subjective and is not very palatable to purists, but it is what statisticians regularly appeal to when they take “a random sample” —they hope that any results they use will have approximately the same properties as a complete counting of the whole sample space that occurs in their theory. Figure 7.1 contrasts a true random number generator (TRNG) with two forms of pseudorandom number generators. A TRNG takes as input a source that is effectively random; the source is often referred to as an entropy source. We discuss such sources in Section 7.6. In essence, the entropy source is drawn from the physical environment of the computer and could include things such as keystroke timing patterns, disk electrical activity, mouse movements, and instantaneous values of the system clock. The source, or combination of sources, serve as input to an algorithm that produces random binary output. The TRNG may simply involve conversion of an analog source to a binary output. The TRNG may involve additional processing to overcome any bias in the source; this is discussed in Section 7.6. In contrast, a PRNG takes as input a fixed value, called the seed, and produces a sequence of output bits using a deterministic algorithm. Typically, as shown, there is some feedback path by which some of the results of the algorithm are fed back as

222

CHAPTER 7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS Contextspecific Seed values

Source of true randomness

Seed

Conversion to binary

Deterministic algorithm

Deterministic algorithm

Random bit stream

Pseudorandom bit stream

Pseudorandom value

(a) TRNG

(b) PRNG

(c) PRF

TRNG = true random number generator PRNG = pseudorandom number generator PRF = pseudorandom function

Figure 7.1

Random and Pseudorandom Number Generators

input as additional output bits are produced. The important thing to note is that the output bit stream is determined solely by the input value or values, so that an adversary who knows the algorithm and the seed can reproduce the entire bit stream. Figure 7.1 shows two different forms of PRNGs, based on application. • Pseudorandom number generator: An algorithm that is used to produce an open-ended sequence of bits is referred to as a PRNG. A common application for an open-ended sequence of bits is as input to a symmetric stream cipher, as discussed in Section 7.4. Also, see Figure 3.1a. • Pseudorandom function (PRF): A PRF is used to produced a pseudorandom string of bits of some fixed length. Examples are symmetric encryption keys and nonces. Typically, the PRF takes as input a seed plus some context specific values, such as a user ID or an application ID. A number of examples of PRFs will be seen throughout this book, notably in Chapters 16 and 17. Other than the number of bits produced, there is no difference between a PRNG and a PRF. The same algorithms can be used in both applications. Both require a seed and both must exhibit randomness and unpredictability. Further, a PRNG application may also employ context-specific input. In what follows, we make no distinction between these two applications.

PRNG Requirements When a PRNG or PRF is used for a cryptographic application, then the basic requirement is that an adversary who does not know the seed is unable to determine the pseudorandom string. For example, if the pseudorandom bit stream is

7.1 / PRINCIPLES OF PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION

223

used in a stream cipher, then knowledge of the pseudorandom bit stream would enable the adversary to recover the plaintext from the ciphertext. Similarly, we wish to protect the output value of a PRF. In this latter case, consider the following scenario. A 128-bit seed, together with some context-specific values, are used to generate a 128-bit secret key that is subsequently used for symmetric encryption. Under normal circumstances, a 128-bit key is safe from a brute-force attack. However, if the PRF does not generate effectively random 128-bit output values, it may be possible for an adversary to narrow the possibilities and successfully use a brute force attack. This general requirement for secrecy of the output of a PRNG or PRF leads to specific requirements in the areas of randomness, unpredictability, and the characteristics of the seed. We now look at these in turn. R ANDOMNESS In terms of randomness, the requirement for a PRNG is that the generated bit stream appear random even though it is deterministic. There is no single test that can determine if a PRNG generates numbers that have the characteristic of randomness. The best that can be done is to apply a sequence of tests to the PRNG. If the PRNG exhibits randomness on the basis of multiple tests, then it can be assumed to satisfy the randomness requirement. NIST SP 800-22 (A Statistical Test Suite for Random and Pseudorandom Number Generators for Cryptographic Applications) specifies that the tests should seek to establish the following three characteristics. • Uniformity: At any point in the generation of a sequence of random or pseudorandom bits, the occurrence of a zero or one is equally likely, i.e., the probability of each is exactly 1/2. The expected number of zeros (or ones) is n/2, where n = the sequence length. • Scalability: Any test applicable to a sequence can also be applied to subsequences extracted at random. If a sequence is random, then any such extracted subsequence should also be random. Hence, any extracted subsequence should pass any test for randomness. • Consistency: The behavior of a generator must be consistent across starting values (seeds). It is inadequate to test a PRNG based on the output from a single seed or an TRNG on the basis of an output produced from a single physical output SP 800-22 lists 15 separate tests of randomness. An understanding of these tests requires a basic knowledge of statistical analysis, so we don’t attempt a technical description here. Instead, to give some flavor for the tests, we list three of the tests and the purpose of each test, as follows. • Frequency test: This is the most basic test and must be included in any test suite. The purpose of this test is to determine whether the number of ones and zeros in a sequence is approximately the same as would be expected for a truly random sequence. • Runs test: The focus of this test is the total number of runs in the sequence, where a run is an uninterrupted sequence of identical bits bounded before and after with a bit of the opposite value.The purpose of the runs test is to determine

224

CHAPTER 7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS

whether the number of runs of ones and zeros of various lengths is as expected for a random sequence. • Maurer’s universal statistical test: The focus of this test is the number of bits between matching patterns (a measure that is related to the length of a compressed sequence). The purpose of the test is to detect whether or not the sequence can be significantly compressed without loss of information. A significantly compressible sequence is considered to be non-random. UNPREDICTABILITY A stream of pseudorandom numbers should exhibit two forms of unpredictability: • Forward unpredictability: If the seed is unknown, the next output bit in the sequence should be unpredictable in spite of any knowledge of previous bits in the sequence. • Backward unpredictability: It should also not be feasible to determine the seed from knowledge of any generated values. No correlation between a seed and any value generated from that seed should be evident; each element of the sequence should appear to be the outcome of an independent random event whose probability is 1/2. The same set of tests for randomness also provide a test of unpredictability. If the generated bit stream appears random, then it is not possible to predict some bit or bit sequence from knowledge of any previous bits. Similarly, if the bit sequence appears random, then there is no feasible way to deduce the seed based on the bit sequence. That is, a random sequence will have no correlation with a fixed value (the seed). SEED REQUIREMENTS For cryptographic applications, the seed that serves as input to the PRNG must be secure. Because the PRNG is a deterministic algorithm, if the adversary can deduce the seed, then the output can also be determined. Therefore, the seed must be unpredictable. In fact, the seed itself must be a random or pseudorandom number. Typically, the seed is generated by a TRNG, as shown in Figure 7.2. This is the scheme recommended by SP800-90. The reader may wonder, if a TRNG is available, why it is necessary to use a PRNG. If the application is a stream cipher, then a TRNG is not practical. The sender would need to generate a keystream of bits as long as the plaintext and then transmit the keystream and the ciphertext securely to the receiver. If a PRNG is used, the sender need only find a way to deliver the stream cipher key, which is typically 54 or 128 bits, to the receiver in a secure fashion. Even in the case of a PRF application, in which only a limited number of bits is generated, it is generally desirable to use a TRNG to provide the seed to the PRF and use the PRF output rather then use the TRNG directly. As is explained in a Section 7.6, a TRNG may produce a binary string with some bias. The PRF would have the effect of “randomizing” the output of the TRNG so as to eliminate that bias. Finally, the mechanism used to generate true random numbers may not be able to generate bits at a rate sufficient to keep up with the application requiring the random bits.

7.1 / PRINCIPLES OF PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION

225

Entropy source

True random number generator (TRNG) Seed Pseudorandom number generator (PRNG)

Pseudorandom bit stream

Figure 7.2

Generation of Seed Input to PRNG

Algorithm Design Cryptographic PRNGs have been the subject of much research over the years, and a wide variety of algorithms have been developed. These fall roughly into two categories. • Purpose-built algorithms: These are algorithms designed specifically and solely for the purpose of generating pseudorandom bit streams. Some of these algorithms are used for a variety of PRNG applications; several of these are described in the next section. Others are designed specifically for use in a stream cipher. The most important example of the latter is RC4, described in Section 7.5. • Algorithms based on existing cryptographic algorithms: Cryptographic algorithms have the effect of randomizing input. Indeed, this is a requirement of such algorithms. For example, if a symmetric block cipher produced ciphertext that had certain regular patterns in it, it would aid in the process of cryptanalysis. Thus, cryptographic algorithms can serve as the core of PRNGs. Three broad categories of cryptographic algorithms are commonly used to create PRNGs: —Symmetric block ciphers: This approach is discussed in Section 7.3. —Asymmetric ciphers: The number theoretic concepts used for an asymmetric cipher can also be adapted for a PRNG; this approach is examined in Chapter 10. —Hash functions and message authentication codes: This approach is examined in Chapter 12. Any of these approaches can yield a cryptographically strong PRNG. A purpose-built algorithm may be provided by an operating system for general use. For applications that already use certain cryptographic algorithms for encryption or authentication, it makes sense to reuse the same code for the PRNG. Thus, all of these approaches are in common use.

226

CHAPTER 7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS

7.2 PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATORS In this section, we look at two types of algorithms for PRNGs.

Linear Congruential Generators A widely used technique for pseudorandom number generation is an algorithm first proposed by Lehmer [LEHM51], which is known as the linear congruential method. The algorithm is parameterized with four numbers, as follows: m a c X0

the modulus the multiplier the increment the starting value, or seed

m 7 0 0 6 a 6 m 0 … c 6 m 0 … X0 6 m

The sequence of random numbers {Xn} is obtained via the following iterative equation: Xn + 1 = (aXn + c)mod m If m, a, c, and X0 are integers, then this technique will produce a sequence of integers with each integer in the range 0 … Xn 6 m. The selection of values for a, c, and m is critical in developing a good random number generator. For example, consider a = c = 1. The sequence produced is obviously not satisfactory. Now consider the values a = 7 , c = 0 , m = 32 , and X0 = 1. This generates the sequence 57, 17, 23, 1, 7, etc.6 , which is also clearly unsatisfactory. Of the 32 possible values, only four are used; thus, the sequence is said to have a period of 4. If, instead, we change the value of a to 5, then the sequence is 55, 25, 29, 17, 21, 9, 13, 1, 5, etc.6 , which increases the period to 8. We would like m to be very large, so that there is the potential for producing a long series of distinct random numbers. A common criterion is that m be nearly equal to the maximum representable nonnegative integer for a given computer. Thus, a value of m near to or equal to 231 is typically chosen. [PARK88a] proposes three tests to be used in evaluating a random number generator: T1: T2: T3:

The function should be a full-period generating function. That is, the function should generate all the numbers between 0 and m before repeating. The generated sequence should appear random. The function should implement efficiently with 32-bit arithmetic.

With appropriate values of a, c, and m, these three tests can be passed. With respect to T1, it can be shown that if m is prime and c = 0, then for certain values of a the period of the generating function is m - 1, with only the value 0 missing. For

7.2 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATORS

227

32-bit arithmetic, a convenient prime value of m is 231 - 1 . Thus, the generating function becomes Xn + 1 = (aXn) mod (231 - 1) Of the more than 2 billion possible choices for a, only a handful of multipliers pass all three tests. One such value is a = 75 = 16807, which was originally selected for use in the IBM 360 family of computers [LEWI69]. This generator is widely used and has been subjected to a more thorough testing than any other PRNG. It is frequently recommended for statistical and simulation work (e.g., [JAIN91]). The strength of the linear congruential algorithm is that if the multiplier and modulus are properly chosen, the resulting sequence of numbers will be statistically indistinguishable from a sequence drawn at random (but without replacement) from the set 1, 2, Á , m - 1. But there is nothing random at all about the algorithm, apart from the choice of the initial value X0. Once that value is chosen, the remaining numbers in the sequence follow deterministically. This has implications for cryptanalysis. If an opponent knows that the linear congruential algorithm is being used and if the parameters are known (e.g., a = 75, c = 0, m = 231 - 1), then once a single number is discovered, all subsequent numbers are known. Even if the opponent knows only that a linear congruential algorithm is being used, knowledge of a small part of the sequence is sufficient to determine the parameters of the algorithm. Suppose that the opponent is able to determine values for X0, X1, X2, and X3. Then X1 = (aX0 + c) mod m X2 = (aX1 + c) mod m X3 = (aX2 + c) mod m These equations can be solved for a, c, and m. Thus, although it is nice to be able to use a good PRNG, it is desirable to make the actual sequence used nonreproducible, so that knowledge of part of the sequence on the part of an opponent is insufficient to determine future elements of the sequence. This goal can be achieved in a number of ways. For example, [BRIG79] suggests using an internal system clock to modify the random number stream. One way to use the clock would be to restart the sequence after every N numbers using the current clock value (mod m) as the new seed. Another way would be simply to add the current clock value to each random number (mod m).

Blum Blum Shub Generator A popular approach to generating secure pseudorandom numbers is known as the Blum, Blum, Shub (BBS) generator, named for its developers [BLUM86]. It has perhaps the strongest public proof of its cryptographic strength of any purpose-built algorithm. The procedure is as follows. First, choose two large prime numbers, p and q, that both have a remainder of 3 when divided by 4. That is, p K q K 3(mod 4)

228

CHAPTER 7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS

This notation, explained more fully in Chapter 4, simply means that (p mod 4) = (q mod 4) = 3 . For example, the prime numbers 7 and 11 satisfy 7 K 11 K 3(mod 4). Let n = p * q. Next, choose a random number s, such that s is relatively prime to n; this is equivalent to saying that neither p nor q is a factor of s. Then the BBS generator produces a sequence of bits Bi according to the following algorithm: X0 for i Xi Bi

= = = =

s2 mod n 1 to q (Xi - 1)2 mod n Xi mod 2

Thus, the least significant bit is taken at each iteration. Table 7.1, shows an example of BBS operation. Here, n = 192649 = 383 * 503, and the seed s = 101355. The BBS is referred to as a cryptographically secure pseudorandom bit generator (CSPRBG). A CSPRBG is defined as one that passes the next-bit test, which, in turn, is defined as follows [MENE97]: A pseudorandom bit generator is said to pass the next-bit test if there is not a polynomial-time algorithm2 that, on input of the first k bits of an output sequence, can predict the (k + 1)st bit with probability significantly greater than 1/2. In other words, given the first k bits of the sequence, there is not a practical algorithm that can even allow you to state that the next bit will be 1 (or 0) with probability greater than 1/2. For all practical purposes, the sequence is unpredictable. The security of BBS is based on the difficulty of factoring n. That is, given n, we need to determine its two prime factors p and q.

Table 7.1 Example Operation of BBS Generator

2

Xi

Bi

11

137922

0

12

123175

1

13

8630

0

14

114386

0

0

15

14863

1

174051

1

16

133015

1

6

80649

1

17

106065

1

7

45663

1

18

45870

0

8

69442

0

19

137171

1

9

186894

0

20

48060

0

10

177046

0

i

Xi

Bi

0 1

20749 143135

1

2

177671

1

3

97048

0

4

89992

5

i

A polynomial-time algorithm of order k is one whose running time is bounded by a polynomial of order k.

7.3 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION USING A BLOCK CIPHER

229

7.3 PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION USING A BLOCK CIPHER A popular approach to PRNG construction is to use a symmetric block cipher as the heart of the PRNG mechanism. For any block of plaintext, a symmetric block cipher produces an output block that is apparently random. That is, there are no patterns or regularities in the ciphertext that provide information that can be used to deduce the plaintext. Thus, a symmetric block cipher is a good candidate for building a pseudorandom number generator. If an established, standardized block cipher is used, such as DES or AES, then the security characteristics of the PRNG can be established. Further, many applications already make use of DES or AES, so the inclusion of the block cipher as part of the PRNG algorithm is straightforward.

PRNG Using Block Cipher Modes of Operation Two approaches that use a block cipher to build a PNRG have gained widespread acceptance: the CTR mode and the OFB mode. The CTR mode is recommended in SP 800-90, in the ANSI standard X9.82 (Random Number Generation), and in RFC 4086. The OFB mode is recommended in X9.82 and RFC 4086. Figure 7.3 illustrates the two methods. In each case, the seed consists of two parts: the encryption key value and a value V that will be updated after each block of pseudorandom numbers is generated. Thus, for AES-128, the seed consists of a 128-bit key and a 128-bit V value. In the CTR case, the value of V is incremented by 1 after each encryption. In the case of OFB, the value of V is updated to equal the value of the preceding PRNG block. In both cases, pseudorandom bits are produced one block at a time (e.g., for AES, PRNG bits are generated 128 bits at a time).

1

+

V

K

Encrypt

V

K

Encrypt

Pseudorandom bits

Pseudorandom bits

(a) CTR mode

(b) OFB mode

Figure 7.3

PRNG Mechanisms Based on Block Ciphers

230

CHAPTER 7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS

The CTR algorithm for PRNG can be summarized as follows. while (len (temp) < requested_number_of_bits) do V = (V + 1) mod 2128. output_block = E(Key, V) temp = temp || ouput_block The OFB algorithm can be summarized as follows. while (len (temp) < requested_number_of_bits) do V = E(Key, V) temp = temp || V To get some idea of the performance of these two PRNGs, consider the following short experiment. A random bit sequence of 256 bits was obtained from random.org, which uses three radios tuned between stations to pick up atmospheric noise. These 256 bits form the seed, allocated as Key:

cfb0ef3108d49cc4562d5810b0a9af60

V:

4c89af496176b728ed1e2ea8ba27f5a4

The total number of one bits in the 256-bit seed is 124, or a fraction of 0.48, which is reassuringly close to the ideal of 0.5. For the OFB PRNG, Table 7.2 shows the first eight output blocks (1024 bits) with two rough measures of security. The second column shows the fraction of one bits in each 128-bit block. This corresponds to one of the NIST tests. The results indicate that the output is split roughly equally between zero and one bits. The third column shows the fraction of bits that match between adjacent blocks. If this number differs substantially from 0.5, that suggests a correlation between blocks, which could be a security weakness. The results suggest no correlation. Table 7.2 Example Results for PRNG Using OFB

Output Block

Fraction of One Bits

Fraction of Bits that Match with Preceding Block

1786f4c7ff6e291dbdfdd90ec3453176

0.57

—

5e17b22b14677a4d66890f87565eae64

0.51

0.52

fd18284ac82251dfb3aa62c326cd46cc

0.47

0.54

c8e545198a758ef5dd86b41946389bd5

0.50

0.44

fe7bae0e23019542962e2c52d215a2e3

0.47

0.48

14fdf5ec99469598ae0379472803accd

0.49

0.52

6aeca972e5a3ef17bd1a1b775fc8b929

0.57

0.48

f7e97badf359d128f00d9b4ae323db64

0.55

0.45

7.3 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION USING A BLOCK CIPHER

231

Table 7.3 Example Results for PRNG Using CTR Fraction of One Bits

Fraction of Bits that Match with Preceding Block

1786f4c7ff6e291dbdfdd90ec3453176

0.57

—

60809669a3e092a01b463472fdcae420

0.41

0.41

d4e6e170b46b0573eedf88ee39bff33d

0.59

0.45

5f8fcfc5deca18ea246785d7fadc76f8

0.59

0.52

90e63ed27bb07868c753545bdd57ee28

0.53

0.52

0125856fdf4a17f747c7833695c52235

0.50

0.47

f4be2d179b0f2548fd748c8fc7c81990

0.51

0.48

1151fc48f90eebac658a3911515c3c66

0.47

0.45

Output Block

Table 7.3 shows the results using the same key and V values for CTR mode. Again, the results are favorable.

ANSI X9.17 PRNG One of the strongest (cryptographically speaking) PRNGs is specified in ANSI X9.17. A number of applications employ this technique, including financial security applications and PGP (the latter described in Chapter 18). Figure 7.4 illustrates the algorithm, which makes use of triple DES for encryption. The ingredients are as follows. • Input: Two pseudorandom inputs drive the generator. One is a 64-bit representation of the current date and time, which is updated on each number generation. The other is a 64-bit seed value; this is initialized to some arbitrary value and is updated during the generation process.

K1, K2

DTi

EDE

EDE

Vi

Vi1

EDE

Ri

Figure 7.4

ANSI X9.17 Pseudorandom Number Generator

232

CHAPTER 7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS

• Keys: The generator makes use of three triple DES encryption modules. All three make use of the same pair of 56-bit keys, which must be kept secret and are used only for pseudorandom number generation. • Output: The output consists of a 64-bit pseudorandom number and a 64-bit seed value. Let us define the following quantities. DTi Vi Ri K1, K2

Date/time value at the beginning of ith generation stage Seed value at the beginning of ith generation stage Pseudorandom number produced by the ith generation stage DES keys used for each stage

Then Ri = EDE([K1, K2], [Vi 䊝 EDE([K1, K2], DTi)]) Vi + 1 = EDE([K1, K2], [Ri 䊝 EDE([K1, K2], DTi)]) where EDE([K1, K2],X) refers to the sequence encrypt-decrypt-encrypt using twokey triple DES to encrypt X. Several factors contribute to the cryptographic strength of this method. The technique involves a 112-bit key and three EDE encryptions for a total of nine DES encryptions. The scheme is driven by two pseudorandom inputs, the date and time value, and a seed produced by the generator that is distinct from the pseudorandom number produced by the generator. Thus, the amount of material that must be compromised by an opponent is overwhelming. Even if a pseudorandom number Ri were compromised, it would be impossible to deduce the Vi + 1 from the Ri, because an additional EDE operation is used to produce the Vi + 1.

7.4 STREAM CIPHERS A typical stream cipher encrypts plaintext one byte at a time, although a stream cipher may be designed to operate on one bit at a time or on units larger than a byte at a time. Figure 7.5 is a representative diagram of stream cipher structure. In this structure, a key is input to a pseudorandom bit generator that produces a stream of 8-bit numbers that are apparently random. The output of the generator, called a keystream, is combined one byte at a time with the plaintext stream using the bitwise exclusive-OR (XOR) operation. For example, if the next byte generated by the generator is 01101100 and the next plaintext byte is 11001100, then the resulting ciphertext byte is 11001100 plaintext 䊝 01101100 key stream 10100000 ciphertext

7.4 / STREAM CIPHERS Key K

Key K

Pseudorandom byte generator (key stream generator)

Pseudorandom byte generator (key stream generator)

k Plaintext byte stream M

Figure 7.5

ENCRYPTION

233

k Ciphertext byte stream C

DECRYPTION

Plaintext byte stream M

Stream Cipher Diagram

Decryption requires the use of the same pseudorandom sequence: 10100000 ciphertext 䊝 01101100 key stream 11001100 plaintext The stream cipher is similar to the one-time pad discussed in Chapter 2. The difference is that a one-time pad uses a genuine random number stream, whereas a stream cipher uses a pseudorandom number stream. [KUMA97] lists the following important design considerations for a stream cipher. 1. The encryption sequence should have a large period. A pseudorandom number generator uses a function that produces a deterministic stream of bits that eventually repeats. The longer the period of repeat the more difficult it will be to do cryptanalysis. This is essentially the same consideration that was discussed with reference to the Vigenère cipher, namely that the longer the keyword the more difficult the cryptanalysis. 2. The keystream should approximate the properties of a true random number stream as close as possible. For example, there should be an approximately equal number of 1s and 0s. If the keystream is treated as a stream of bytes, then all of the 256 possible byte values should appear approximately equally often. The more random-appearing the keystream is, the more randomized the ciphertext is, making cryptanalysis more difficult. 3. Note from Figure 7.5 that the output of the pseudorandom number generator is conditioned on the value of the input key. To guard against brute-force attacks, the key needs to be sufficiently long. The same considerations that apply to block ciphers are valid here. Thus, with current technology, a key length of at least 128 bits is desirable.

234

CHAPTER 7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS Table 7.4 Speed Comparisons of Symmetric Ciphers on a Pentium II Cipher

Key Length

Speed (Mbps)

DES

56

9

3DES

168

3

RC2

Variable

RC4

Variable

0.9 45

With a properly designed pseudorandom number generator, a stream cipher can be as secure as a block cipher of comparable key length. A potential advantage of a stream cipher is that stream ciphers that do not use block ciphers as a building block are typically faster and use far less code than do block ciphers. The example in this chapter, RC4, can be implemented in just a few lines of code. Table 7.4, using data from [RESC01], compares execution times of RC4 with three symmetric block ciphers. One advantage of a block cipher is that you can reuse keys. In contrast, if two plaintexts are encrypted with the same key using a stream cipher, then cryptanalysis is often quite simple [DAWS96]. If the two ciphertext streams are XORed together, the result is the XOR of the original plaintexts. If the plaintexts are text strings, credit card numbers, or other byte streams with known properties, then cryptanalysis may be successful. For applications that require encryption/decryption of a stream of data, such as over a data communications channel or a browser/Web link, a stream cipher might be the better alternative. For applications that deal with blocks of data, such as file transfer, e-mail, and database, block ciphers may be more appropriate. However, either type of cipher can be used in virtually any application. A stream cipher can be constructed with any cryptographically strong PRNG, such as the ones discussed in Sections 7.2 and 7.3. In the next section, we look at a stream cipher that uses a PRNG designed specifically for the stream cipher.

7.5 RC4 RC4 is a stream cipher designed in 1987 by Ron Rivest for RSA Security. It is a variable key size stream cipher with byte-oriented operations. The algorithm is based on the use of a random permutation. Analysis shows that the period of the cipher is overwhelmingly likely to be greater than 10100 [ROBS95a]. Eight to sixteen machine operations are required per output byte, and the cipher can be expected to run very quickly in software. RC4 is used in the Secure Sockets Layer/Transport Layer Security (SSL/TLS) standards that have been defined for communication between Web browsers and servers. It is also used in the Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) protocol and the newer WiFi Protected Access (WPA) protocol that are part of the IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN standard. RC4 was kept as a trade secret by RSA Security. In September 1994, the RC4 algorithm was anonymously posted on the Internet on the Cypherpunks anonymous remailers list.

7.5 / RC4

235

The RC4 algorithm is remarkably simple and quite easy to explain. A variable-length key of from 1 to 256 bytes (8 to 2048 bits) is used to initialize a 256-byte state vector S, with elements S[0], S[1], Á , S[255]. At all times, S contains a permutation of all 8-bit numbers from 0 through 255. For encryption and decryption, a byte k (see Figure 7.5) is generated from S by selecting one of the 255 entries in a systematic fashion. As each value of k is generated, the entries in S are once again permuted.

Initialization of S To begin, the entries of S are set equal to the values from 0 through 255 in ascending order; that is, S[0] = 0, S[1] = 1, Á , S[255] = 255 . A temporary vector, T, is also created. If the length of the key K is 256 bytes, then T is transferred to T. Otherwise, for a key of length keylen bytes, the first keylen elements of T are copied from K, and then K is repeated as many times as necessary to fill out T. These preliminary operations can be summarized as /* Initialization */ for i = 0 to 255 do S[i] = i; T[i] = K[i mod keylen]; Next we use T to produce the initial permutation of S. This involves starting with S[0] and going through to S[255], and for each S[i], swapping S[i] with another byte in S according to a scheme dictated by T[i]: /* Initial Permutation of S */ j = 0; for i = 0 to 255 do j = (j + S[i] + T[i]) mod 256; Swap (S[i], S[j]); Because the only operation on S is a swap, the only effect is a permutation. S still contains all the numbers from 0 through 255.

Stream Generation Once the S vector is initialized, the input key is no longer used. Stream generation involves cycling through all the elements of S[i], and for each S[i], swapping S[i] with another byte in S according to a scheme dictated by the current configuration of S. After S[255] is reached, the process continues, starting over again at S[0]: /* Stream Generation */ i, j = 0; while (true) i = (i + 1) mod 256; j = (j + S[i]) mod 256;

236

CHAPTER 7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS

Swap (S[i], S[j]); t = (S[i] + S[j]) mod 256; k = S[t]; To encrypt, XOR the value k with the next byte of plaintext. To decrypt, XOR the value k with the next byte of ciphertext. Figure 7.6 illustrates the RC4 logic.

Strength of RC4 A number of papers have been published analyzing methods of attacking RC4 (e.g., [KNUD98], [MIST98], [FLUH00], [MANT01]). None of these approaches is practical against RC4 with a reasonable key length, such as 128 bits. A more serious problem is reported in [FLUH01]. The authors demonstrate that the WEP protocol, intended to provide confidentiality on 802.11 wireless LAN networks, is vulnerable to a particular attack approach. In essence, the problem is not with RC4 itself but the way in which keys are generated for use as input to RC4. This particular problem does not appear to be relevant to other applications using RC4 and

S

0

1

2

3

4

253 254 255

Keylen

K

T (a) Initial state of S and T

T

T[i] j = j + S[i] + T[i]

S

S[i]

S[j]

i

Swap (b) Initial permutation of S j = j + S[i]

S

S[i] i

S[j]

S[t]

Swap t = S[i] + S[j] k (c) Stream generation

Figure 7.6

RC4

7.6 / TRUE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATORS

237

can be remedied in WEP by changing the way in which keys are generated. This problem points out the difficulty in designing a secure system that involves both cryptographic functions and protocols that make use of them.

7.6 TRUE RANDOM NUMBER GENERATORS Entropy Sources A true random number generator (TRNG) uses a nondeterministic source to produce randomness. Most operate by measuring unpredictable natural processes, such as pulse detectors of ionizing radiation events, gas discharge tubes, and leaky capacitors. Intel has developed a commercially available chip that samples thermal noise by amplifying the voltage measured across undriven resistors [JUN99]. LavaRnd is an open source project for creating truly random numbers using inexpensive cameras, open source code, and inexpensive hardware. The system uses a saturated CCD in a light-tight can as a chaotic source to produce the seed. Software processes the result into truly random numbers in a variety of formats. RFC 4086 lists the following possible sources of randomness that, with care, easily can be used on a computer to generate true random sequences. • Sound/video input: Many computers are built with inputs that digitize some real-world analog source, such as sound from a microphone or video input from a camera. The “input” from a sound digitizer with no source plugged in or from a camera with the lens cap on is essentially thermal noise. If the system has enough gain to detect anything, such input can provide reasonably high quality random bits. • Disk drives: Disk drives have small random fluctuations in their rotational speed due to chaotic air turbulence [JAKO98]. The addition of low-level disk seek-time instrumentation produces a series of measurements that contain this randomness. Such data is usually highly correlated, so significant processing is needed. Nevertheless, experimentation a decade ago showed that, with such processing, even slow disk drives on the slower computers of that day could easily produce 100 bits a minute or more of excellent random data. There is also an online service (random.org), which can deliver random sequences securely over the Internet.

Skew A TRNG may produce an output that is biased in some way, such as having more ones than zeros or vice versa. Various methods of modifying a bit stream to reduce or eliminate the bias have been developed. These are referred to as deskewing algorithms. One approach to deskew is to pass the bit stream through a hash function, such as MD5 or SHA-1 (described in Chapter 11). The hash function produces an n-bit output from an input of arbitrary length. For deskewing, blocks of m input bits, with m Ú n, can be passed through the hash function. RFC 4086 recommends collecting input from multiple hardware sources and then mixing these using a hash function to produce random output.

238

CHAPTER 7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS

Operating systems typically provide a built-in mechanism for generating random numbers. For example, Linux uses four entropy sources: mouse and keyboard activity, disk I/O operations, and specific interrupts. Bits are generated from these four sources and combined in a pooled buffer. When random bits are needed, the appropriate number of bits are read from the buffer and passed through the SHA-1 hash function [GUTT06].

7.7 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITES Perhaps the best treatment of PRNGs is found in [KNUT98]. An alternative to the standard linear congruential algorithm, known as the linear recurrence algorithm, is explained in some detail in [BRIG79]. [ZENG91] assesses various PRNG algorithms for use in generating variable-length keys for Vernam types of ciphers. An excellent survey of PRNGs, with an extensive bibliography, is [RITT91]. [MENE97] also provides a good discussions of secure PRNGs. Another good treatment, with an emphasis on practical implementation issues, is RFC 4086 [EAST05]. This RFC also describes a number of deskewing techniques. [KELS98] is a good survey of secure PRNG techniques and cryptanalytic attacks on them. SP 800-90 [BARK07] provides a useful treatment of a variety of PRNGs recommended by NIST. SP 800-22 [RUKH08] defines and discusses the 15 statistical tests of randomness recommended by NIST. [KUMA97] contains an excellent and lengthy discussion of stream cipher design principles. Another good treatment, quite mathematical, is [RUEP92]. [ROBS95a] is an interesting and worthwhile examination of many design issues related to stream ciphers.

BARK07 Barker, E., and Kelsey, J. Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators. NIST SP 800-90, March 2007. BRIG79 Bright, H., and Enison, R. “Quasi-Random Number Sequences from LongPeriod TLP Generator with Remarks on Application to Cryptography.” Computing Surveys, December 1979. EAST05 Eastlake, D.; Schiller, J.; and Crocker, S. Randomness Requirements for Security. RFC 4086, June 2005. KELS98 Kelsey, J.; Schneier, B.; and Hall, C. “Cryptanalytic Attacks on Pseudorandom Number Generators.” Proceedings, Fast Software Encryption, 1998. http:// www.schneier.com/paper-prngs.html KNUT98 Knuth, D. The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminumerical Algorithms. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1998. KUMA97 Kumar, I. Cryptology. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1997. MENE97 Menezes, A.; Oorshcot, P.; and Vanstone, S. Handbook of Applied Cryptography. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1997. ROBS95a Robshaw, M. Stream Ciphers. RSA Laboratories Technical Report TR-701, July 1995. RITT91 Ritter, T. “The Efficient Generation of Cryptographic Confusion Sequences.” Cryptologia, vol. 15 no. 2, 1991. www.ciphersbyritter.com/ARTS/CRNG2ART.HTM RUEP92 Rueppel, T. “Stream Ciphers.” In [SIMM92].

7.8 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

239

RUKH08 Rukhin, A., et al. A Statistical Test Suite for Random and Pseudorandom Number Generators for Cryptographic Applications. NIST SP 800-22, August 2008. SIMM92 Simmons, G., ed. Contemporary Cryptology: The Science of Information Integrity. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 1992. ZENG91 Zeng, K.; Yang, C.; Wei, D.; and Rao, T. “Pseudorandom Bit Generators in Stream-Cipher Cryptography.” Computer, February 1991.

Recommended Web Sites: • NIST Random Number Generation Technical Working Group: Contains documents and tests developed by NIST that related to PRNGs for cryptographic applications. Also has useful set of links. • NIST Random Number Generation Cryptographic Toolkit: Another useful NIST site with documents and links. • LavaRnd: LavaRnd is an open source project that uses a chaotic source to generate truly random numbers. The site also has background information on random numbers in general. • Quantum Random Numbers: You can access quantum random numbers on the fly here. • RandomNumber.org: Another source of random numbers. • A Million Random Digits: Compiled by the RAND Corporation.

7.8 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms backward unpredictability Blum, Blum, Shub generator deskewing entropy source forward unpredictability keystream linear congruential generator

pseudorandom function (PRF) pseudorandom number generator (PRNG) randomness RC4 seed

stream cipher skew true random number generator (TRNG) unpredictability

Review Questions 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

What is the difference between statistical randomness and unpredictability? List important design considerations for a stream cipher. Why is it not desirable to reuse a stream cipher key? What primitive operations are used in RC4?

240

CHAPTER 7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS

Problems 7.1

If we take the linear congruential algorithm with an additive component of 0, Xn + 1 = (aXn) mod m

7.2

Then it can be shown that if m is prime and if a given value of a produces the maximum period of m - 1, then ak will also produce the maximum period, provided that k is less than m and that k and m - 1 are relatively prime. Demonstrate this by using X0 = 1 and m = 31 and producing the sequences for ak = 3, 32, 33, and 34. a. What is the maximum period obtainable from the following generator? Xn + 1 = (aXn) mod 24

7.3

7.4

b. What should be the value of a? c. What restrictions are required on the seed? You may wonder why the modulus m = 231 - 1 was chosen for the linear congruential method instead of simply 231, because this latter number can be represented with no additional bits and the mod operation should be easier to perform. In general, the modulus 2k - 1 is preferable to 2k. Why is this so? With the linear congruential algorithm, a choice of parameters that provides a full period does not necessarily provide a good randomization. For example, consider the following two generators: Xn + 1 = (6Xn) mod 13 Xn + 1 = (7Xn) mod 13

7.5

7.6

Write out the two sequences to show that both are full period. Which one appears more random to you? In any use of pseudorandom numbers, whether for encryption, simulation, or statistical design, it is dangerous to trust blindly the random number generator that happens to be available in your computer’s system library. [PARK88] found that many contemporary textbooks and programming packages make use of flawed algorithms for pseudorandom number generation. This exercise will enable you to test your system. The test is based on a theorem attributed to Ernesto Cesaro (see [KNUT98] for a proof), which states the following: Given two randomly chosen integers, x and y, the probability that gcd(x, y) = 1 is 6/p2. Use this theorem in a program to determine statistically the value of p. The main program should call three subprograms: the random number generator from the system library to generate the random integers; a subprogram to calculate the greatest common divisor of two integers using Euclid’s Algorithm; and a subprogram that calculates square roots. If these latter two programs are not available, you will have to write them as well. The main program should loop through a large number of random numbers to give an estimate of the aforementioned probability. From this, it is a simple matter to solve for your estimate of p. If the result is close to 3.14, congratulations! If not, then the result is probably low, usually a value of around 2.7. Why would such an inferior result be obtained? Suppose you have a true random bit generator where each bit in the generated stream has the same probability of being a 0 or 1 as any other bit in the stream and that the bits are not correlated; that is the bits are generated from identical independent distribution. However, the bit stream is biased. The probability of a 1 is 0.5 + 0 and the probability of a 0 is n, where 0 6 0 6 0.5. A simple deskewing algorithm is as follows: Examine the bit stream as a sequence of non-overlapping pairs. Discard all 00 and 11 pairs. Replace each 01 pair with 0 and each 10 pair with 1. a. What is the probability of occurrence of each pair in the original sequence? b. What is the probability of occurrence of 0 and 1 in the modified sequence? c. What is the expected number of input bits to produce x output bits?

7.8 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

7.7

7.8

7.9

7.10

241

d. Suppose that the algorithm uses overlapping successive bit pairs instead of nonoverlapping successive bit pairs. That is, the first output bit is based on input bits 1 and 2, the second output bit is based on input bits 2 and 3, and so on. What can you say about the output bit stream? Another approach to deskewing is to consider the bit stream as a sequence of nonoverlapping groups of n bits each and output the parity of each group. That is, if a group contains an odd number of ones, the output is 1; otherwise the output is 0. a. Express this operation in terms of a basic Boolean function. b. Assume, as in the preceding problem, that the probability of a 1 is 0.5 + 0 . If each group consists of 2 bits, what is the probability of an output of 1? c. If each group consists of 4 bits, what is the probability of an output of 1? d. Generalize the result to find the probability of an output of 1 for input groups of n bits. What RC4 key value will leave S unchanged during initialization? That is, after the initial permutation of S, the entries of S will be equal to the values from 0 through 255 in ascending order. RC4 has a secret internal state which is a permutation of all the possible values of the vector S and the two indices i and j. a. Using a straightforward scheme to store the internal state, how many bits are used? b. Suppose we think of it from the point of view of how much information is represented by the state. In that case, we need to determine how may different states there are, then take the log to base 2 to find out how many bits of information this represents. Using this approach, how many bits would be needed to represent the state? Alice and Bob agree to communicate privately via email using a scheme based on RC4, but they want to avoid using a new secret key for each transmission. Alice and Bob privately agree on a 128-bit key k. To encrypt a message m, consisting of a string of bits, the following procedure is used. 1. Choose a random 80-bit value v 2. Generate the ciphertext c = RC4(v ‘ k) 䊝 m 3. Send the bit string (v ‘ c) a. Suppose Alice uses this procedure to send a message m to Bob. Describe how Bob can recover the message m from (v ‘ c) using k. b. If an adversary observes several values (v1 ‘ c1), (v2 ‘ c2), . . . transmitted between Alice and Bob, how can he/she determine when the same key stream has been used to encrypt two messages? c. Approximately how many messages can Alice expect to send before the same key stream will be used twice? Use the result from the birthday paradox described in Appendix 11A [Equation (11.7)]. d. What does this imply about the lifetime of the key k (i.e., the number of messages that can be encrypted using k)?

This page intentionally left blank

PART 2: ASYMMETRIC CIPHERS CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY 8.1

Prime Numbers

8.2

Fermat’s and Euler’s Theorems Fermat’s Theorem Euler’s Totient Function Euler’s Theorem

8.3

Testing for Primality Miller-Rabin Algorithm A Deterministic Primality Algorithm Distribution of Primes

8.4

The Chinese Remainder Theorem

8.5

Discrete Logarithms The Powers of an Integer, Modulo n Logarithms for Modular Arithmetic Calculation of Discrete Logarithms

8.6

Recommended Reading and Web Site

8.7

Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

243

244

CHAPTER 8 / INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY

The Devil said to Daniel Webster: “Set me a task I can’t carry out, and I’ll give you anything in the world you ask for.” Daniel Webster: “Fair enough. Prove that for n greater than 2, the equation an + bn = cn has no non-trivial solution in the integers.” They agreed on a three-day period for the labor, and the Devil disappeared. At the end of three days, the Devil presented himself, haggard, jumpy, biting his lip. Daniel Webster said to him, “Well, how did you do at my task? Did you prove the theorem?” “Eh? No ... no, I haven’t proved it.” “Then I can have whatever I ask for? Money? The Presidency?” “What? Oh, that—of course. But listen! If we could just prove the following two lemmas—” —The Mathematical Magpie, Clifton Fadiman

KEY POINTS ◆

◆ ◆

◆

A prime number is an integer that can only be divided without remainder by positive and negative values of itself and 1. Prime numbers play a critical role both in number theory and in cryptography. Two theorems that play important roles in public-key cryptography are Fermat’s theorem and Euler’s theorem. An important requirement in a number of cryptographic algorithms is the ability to choose a large prime number. An area of ongoing research is the development of efficient algorithms for determining if a randomly chosen large integer is a prime number. Discrete logarithms are fundamental to a number of public-key algorithms. Discrete logarithms are analogous to ordinary logarithms but are defined using modular arithmetic.

A number of concepts from number theory are essential in the design of public-key cryptographic algorithms. This chapter provides an overview of the concepts referred to in other chapters. The reader familiar with these topics can safely skip this chapter. The reader should also review Sections 4.1 through 4.3 before proceeding with this chapter. As with Chapter 4, this chapter includes a number of examples, each of which is highlighted in a shaded box.

8.1 / PRIME NUMBERS

245

8.1 PRIME NUMBERS1 A central concern of number theory is the study of prime numbers. Indeed, whole books have been written on the subject (e.g., [CRAN01], [RIBE96]). In this section, we provide an overview relevant to the concerns of this book. An integer p 7 1 is a prime number if and only if its only divisors2 are ;1 and ; p. Prime numbers play a critical role in number theory and in the techniques discussed in this chapter. Table 8.1 shows the primes less than 2000. Note the way the primes are distributed. In particular, note the number of primes in each range of 100 numbers. Any integer a 7 1 can be factored in a unique way as a = pa11 * pa22 * Á * pat t

(8.1)

where p1 6 p2 6 Á 6 pt are prime numbers and where each ai is a positive integer. This is known as the fundamental theorem of arithmetic; a proof can be found in any text on number theory. 91 = 7 * 13 3600 = 24 * 32 * 52 11011 = 7 * 112 * 13 It is useful for what follows to express this another way. If P is the set of all prime numbers, then any positive integer a can be written uniquely in the following form: a = q pap

where each ap Ú 0

p僆P

The right-hand side is the product over all possible prime numbers p; for any particular value of a, most of the exponents ap will be 0. The value of any given positive integer can be specified by simply listing all the nonzero exponents in the foregoing formulation. The integer 12 is represented by {a2 = 2, a3 = 1}. The integer 18 is represented by {a2 = 1, a3 = 2}. The integer 91 is represented by {a7 = 1, a13 = 1}. Multiplication of two numbers is equivalent to adding the corresponding exponents. Given a = q pap, b = q pbp. Define k = ab. We know that the integer p僆P

1

p僆P

In this section, unless otherwise noted, we deal only with the nonnegative integers. The use of negative integers would introduce no essential differences. 2 Recall from Chapter 4 that integer a is said to be a divisor of integer b if there is no remainder on division. Equivalently, we say that a divides b.

246 Table 8.1 Primes Under 2000 2

101

211

307

401

503

601

701

809

907

1009

1103

1201

1301

1409

1511

1601

1709

1801

1901

3

103

223

311

409

509

607

709

811

911

1013

1109

1213

1303

1423

1523

1607

1721

1811

1907

5

107

227

313

419

521

613

719

821

919

1019

1117

1217

1307

1427

1531

1609

1723

1823

1913

7

109

229

317

421

523

617

727

823

929

1021

1123

1223

1319

1429

1543

1613

1733

1831

1931

11

113

233

331

431

541

619

733

827

937

1031

1129

1229

1321

1433

1549

1619

1741

1847

1933

13

127

239

337

433

547

631

739

829

941

1033

1151

1231

1327

1439

1553

1621

1747

1861

1949

17

131

241

347

439

557

641

743

839

947

1039

1153

1237

1361

1447

1559

1627

1753

1867

1951

19

137

251

349

443

563

643

751

853

953

1049

1163

1249

1367

1451

1567

1637

1759

1871

1973

23

139

257

353

449

569

647

757

857

967

1051

1171

1259

1373

1453

1571

1657

1777

1873

1979

29

149

263

359

457

571

653

761

859

971

1061

1181

1277

1381

1459

1579

1663

1783

1877

1987

31

151

269

367

461

577

659

769

863

977

1063

1187

1279

1399

1471

1583

1667

1787

1879

1993

37

157

271

373

463

587

661

773

877

983

1069

1193

1283

1481

1597

1669

1789

1889

1997

41

163

277

379

467

593

673

787

881

991

1087

1289

1483

1693

43

167

281

383

479

599

677

797

883

997

1091

1291

1487

1697

47

173

283

389

487

683

1093

1297

1489

1699

53

179

293

397

491

691

59

181

61

191

67

193

71

197

73

199

79 83 89 97

499

887

1097

1493 1499

1999

8.1 / PRIME NUMBERS

247

k can be expressed as the product of powers of primes: k = q pkp. It follows that p僆P kp = ap + bp for all p 僆 P.

k = 12 * 18 = (22 * 3) * (2 * 32) = 216 k2 = 2 + 1 = 3; k3 = 1 + 2 = 3 216 = 23 * 33 = 8 * 27 What does it mean, in terms of the prime factors of a and b, to say that a divides b? Any integer of the form pn can be divided only by an integer that is of a lesser or equal power of the same prime number, pj with j … n. Thus, we can say the following. Given a = q pap, b = q pbp p僆P

p僆P

If a|b, then ap … bp for all p. a 12 a2 a3

= = = =

12; b = 36; 12|36 22 * 3; 36 = 22 * 32 2 = b2 1 … 2 = b3

Thus, the inequality ap … bp is satisfied for all prime numbers. It is easy to determine the greatest common divisor3 of two positive integers if we express each integer as the product of primes. 300 = 22 * 31 * 52 18 = 21 * 32 gcd(18, 300) = 21 * 31 * 50 = 6 The following relationship always holds: If k = gcd(a, b), then kp = min(ap, bp) for all p. Determining the prime factors of a large number is no easy task, so the preceding relationship does not directly lead to a practical method of calculating the greatest common divisor. Recall from Chapter 4 that the greatest common divisor of integers a and b, expressed (gcd a, b), is an integer c that divides both a and b without remainder and that any divisor of a and b is a divisor of c 3

248

CHAPTER 8 / INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY

8.2 FERMAT’S AND EULER’S THEOREMS Two theorems that play important roles in public-key cryptography are Fermat’s theorem and Euler’s theorem.

Fermat’s Theorem4 Fermat’s theorem states the following: If p is prime and a is a positive integer not divisible by p, then ap - 1 K 1 (mod p)

(8.2)

Proof: Consider the set of positive integers less than p: {1, 2, Á , p - 1} and

multiply each element by a, modulo p, to get the set X = {a mod p, 2a mod p, Á , (p - 1)a mod p}. None of the elements of X is equal to zero because p does not divide a. Furthermore, no two of the integers in X are equal. To see this, assume that ja K ka (mod p)), where 1 … j 6 k … p - 1. Because a is relatively prime5 to p, we can eliminate a from both sides of the equation [see Equation (4.3)] resulting in j K k (mod p). This last equality is impossible, because j and k are both positive integers less than p. Therefore, we know that the (p - 1) elements of X are all positive integers with no two elements equal. We can conclude the X consists of the set of integers {1, 2, Á , p - 1} in some order. Multiplying the numbers in both sets (p and X) and taking the result mod p yields a * 2a * Á * (p - 1)a K [(1 * 2 * Á * (p - 1)] (mod p) ap - 1(p - 1)! K (p - 1)! (mod p) We can cancel the ((p - 1)! term because it is relatively prime to p [see Equation (4.5)]. This yields Equation (8.2), which completes the proof. a = 7, p = 19 72 = 49 K 11 (mod 19) 74 K 121 K 7 (mod 19) 78 K 49 K 11 (mod 19) 716 K 121 K 7 (mod 19) ap - 1 = 718 = 716 * 72 K 7 * 11 K 1 (mod 19)

An alternative form of Fermat’s theorem is also useful: If p is prime and a is a positive integer, then ap K a(mod p) 4

(8.3)

This is sometimes referred to as Fermat’s little theorem. Recall from Chapter 4 that two numbers are relatively prime if they have no prime factors in common; that is, their only common divisor is 1. This is equivalent to saying that two numbers are relatively prime if their greatest common divisor is 1. 5

8.2 / FERMAT’S AND EULER’S THEOREMS

249

Note that the first form of the theorem [Equation (8.2)] requires that a be relatively prime to p, but this form does not. p = 5, a = 3 p = 5, a = 10

ap = 35 = 243 K 3(mod 5) = a(mod p) ap = 105 = 100000 K 10(mod 5) K 0(mod 5) = a(mod p)

Euler’s Totient Function Before presenting Euler’s theorem, we need to introduce an important quantity in number theory, referred to as Euler’s totient function, written f(n), and defined as the number of positive integers less than n and relatively prime to n. By convention, f(1) = 1.

DETERMINE f(37) AND f(35). Because 37 is prime, all of the positive integers from 1 through 36 are relatively prime to 37. Thus f(37) = 36. To determine f(35), we list all of the positive integers less than 35 that are relatively prime to it: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18 19, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34 There are 24 numbers on the list, so f(35) = 24.

Table 8.2 lists the first 30 values of f(n). The value f(1) is without meaning but is defined to have the value 1. It should be clear that, for a prime number p, f(p) = p - 1 Now suppose that we have two prime numbers p and q with p Z q. Then we can show that, for n = pq, f(n) = f(pq) = f(p) * f(q) = (p - 1) * (q - 1) To see that f(n) = f(p) * f(q), consider that the set of positive integers less that n is the set {1, Á , (pq - 1)}. The integers in this set that are not relatively prime to n are the set {p, 2p, Á , (q - 1)p} and the set {q, 2q, Á , (p - 1)q}. Accordingly, f(n) = = = =

(pq - 1) - [(q - 1) + (p - 1)] pq - (p + q) + 1 (p - 1) * (q - 1) f(p) * f(q)

250

CHAPTER 8 / INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY

Table 8.2 Some Values of Euler’s Totient Function f(n) n

f(n)

n

f(n)

n

f(n)

1

1

11

10

21

12

2

1

12

4

22

10

3

2

13

12

23

22

4

2

14

6

24

8

5

4

15

8

25

20

6

2

16

8

26

12

7

6

17

16

27

18

8

4

18

6

28

12

9

6

19

18

29

28

10

4

20

8

30

8

f(21) = f(3) * f(7) = (3 - 1) * (7 - 1) = 2 * 6 = 12 where the 12 integers are {1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 20}.

Euler’s Theorem Euler’s theorem states that for every a and n that are relatively prime: af(n) K 1(mod n)

(8.4)

Proof: Equation (8.4) is true if n is prime, because in that case, f(n) = (n - 1) and Fermat’s theorem holds. However, it also holds for any integer n. Recall that f(n) is the number of positive integers less than n that are relatively prime to n. Consider the set of such integers, labeled as R = {x1, x2, Á , xf(n)} That is, each element xi of R is a unique positive integer less than n with gcd(xi, n) = 1. Now multiply each element by a, modulo n: S = {(ax1 mod n), (ax2 mod n), Á , (axf(n) mod n)} The set S is a permutation6 of R, by the following line of reasoning: 1. Because a is relatively prime to n and xi is relatively prime to n, axi must also be relatively prime to n. Thus, all the members of S are integers that are less than n and that are relatively prime to n.

Recall from Chapter 2 that a permutation of a finite set of elements S is an ordered sequence of all the elements of S, with each element appearing exactly once. 6

8.3 / TESTING FOR PRIMALITY

251

2. There are no duplicates in S. Refer to Equation (4.5). If axi mod n = axj mod n, then xi = xj. Therefore, f(n)

f(n)

q (axi mod n) = q xi i=1 f(n)

i=1 f(n)

q axi K q xi (mod n) i=1

i=1

f(n)

f(n)

af(n) * J q xi K K q xi (mod n) i=1

i=1 f(n)

a

K 1 (mod n)

which completes the proof. This is the same line of reasoning applied to the proof of Fermat’s theorem.

a = 3; n = 10; f(10) = 4 af(n) = 34 = 81 = 1 (mod 10) = 1 (mod n) a = 2; n = 11; f(11) = 10 af(n) = 210 = 1024 = 1 (mod 11) = 1 (mod n)

As is the case for Fermat’s theorem, an alternative form of the theorem is also useful: af(n) + 1 K a (mod n)

(8.5)

Again, similar to the case with Fermat’s theorem, the first form of Euler’s theorem [Equation (8.4)] requires that a be relatively prime to n, but this form does not.

8.3 TESTING FOR PRIMALITY For many cryptographic algorithms, it is necessary to select one or more very large prime numbers at random. Thus, we are faced with the task of determining whether a given large number is prime. There is no simple yet efficient means of accomplishing this task. In this section, we present one attractive and popular algorithm. You may be surprised to learn that this algorithm yields a number that is not necessarily a prime. However, the algorithm can yield a number that is almost certainly a prime. This will be explained presently. We also make reference to a deterministic algorithm for finding primes. The section closes with a discussion concerning the distribution of primes.

252

CHAPTER 8 / INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY

Miller-Rabin Algorithm7 The algorithm due to Miller and Rabin [MILL75, RABI80] is typically used to test a large number for primality. Before explaining the algorithm, we need some background. First, any positive odd integer n Ú 3 can be expressed as n - 1 = 2kq

with k 7 0, q odd

To see this, note that n - 1 is an even integer. Then, divide (n - 1) by 2 until the result is an odd number q, for a total of k divisions. If n is expressed as a binary number, then the result is achieved by shifting the number to the right until the rightmost digit is a 1, for a total of k shifts. We now develop two properties of prime numbers that we will need. TWO PROPERTIES OF PRIME NUMBERS The first property is stated as follows: If p is prime and a is a positive integer less than p, then a2 mod p = 1 if and only if either a mod p = 1 or a mod p = -1 mod p = p - 1. By the rules of modular arithmetic (a mod p) (a mod p) = a2 mod p. Thus, if either a mod p = 1 or a mod p = -1, then a2 mod p = 1. Conversely, if a2 mod p = 1, then (a mod p)2 = 1, which is true only for a mod p = 1 or a mod p = -1 The second property is stated as follows: Let p be a prime number greater than 2. We can then write p - 1 = 2kq with k 7 0, q odd. Let a be any integer in the range 1 6 a 6 p - 1. Then one of the two following conditions is true. 1. aq is congruent to 1 modulo p. That is, aq mod p = 1, or equivalently, aq = 1(mod p). q 2q 4q 2k - 1q 2. One of the numbers a , a , a , Á , a is congruent to -1 modulo p. That j-1 is, there is some number j in the range (1 … j … k) such that a2 q j-1 mod p = -1 mod p = p - 1 or equivalently, a2 q K -1 (mod p).

Proof: Fermat’s theorem [Equation (8.2)] states that an - 1 K 1 (mod n) if n is k

prime. We have p - 1 = 2kq. Thus, we know that ap - 1 mod p = a2 q mod p = 1. Thus, if we look at the sequence of numbers k-1

aq mod p, a2q mod p, a4q mod p, Á , a2

q

k

mod p, a2 q mod p

(8.6)

we know that the last number in the list has value 1. Further, each number in the list is the square of the previous number. Therefore, one of the following possibilities must be true. 1. The first number on the list, and therefore all subsequent numbers on the list, equals 1. 2. Some number on the list does not equal 1, but its square mod p does equal 1. By virtue of the first property of prime numbers defined above, we know that the only number that satisfies this condition is p - 1. So, in this case, the list contains an element equal to p - 1. This completes the proof. 7

Also referred to in the literature as the Rabin-Miller algorithm, or the Rabin-Miller test, or the MillerRabin test.

8.3 / TESTING FOR PRIMALITY

253

DETAILS OF THE ALGORITHM These considerations lead to the conclusion that, if n is prime, then either the first element in the list of residues, or remainders, k-1 k 1aq, a2q, Á , a2 q, a2 q2 modulo n equals 1; or some element in the list equals (n - 1) ; otherwise n is composite (i.e., not a prime). On the other hand, if the condition is met, that does not necessarily mean that n is prime. For example, if n = 2047 = 23 * 89, then n - 1 = 2 * 1023. We compute 21023 mod 2047 = 1, so that 2047 meets the condition but is not prime. We can use the preceding property to devise a test for primality. The procedure TEST takes a candidate integer n as input and returns the result composite if n is definitely not a prime, and the result inconclusive if n may or may not be a prime. TEST (n) 1. Find integers k, q, with k 7 0, q odd, so (n - 1 = 2kq); 2. Select a random integer a, 1 6 a 6 n - 1; 3. if aq mod n = 1 then return("inconclusive"); 4. for j = 0 to k - 1 do j 5. if a2 q mod n = n - 1 then return("inconclusive"); 6. return("composite");

that

Let us apply the test to the prime number n = 29. We have (n - 1) = 28 = 22(7) = 2kq. First, let us try a = 10. We compute 107 mod 29 = 17, which is neither 1 nor 28, so we continue the test. The next calculation finds that (107)2 mod 29 = 28, and the test returns inconclusive (i.e., 29 may be prime). Let’s try again with a = 2. We have the following calculations: 27 mod 29 = 12; 214 mod 29 = 28; and the test again returns inconclusive. If we perform the test for all integers a in the range 1 through 28, we get the same inconclusive result, which is compatible with n being a prime number. Now let us apply the test to the composite number n = 13 * 17 = 221. Then (n-1) = 220 = 22(55) = 2kq. Let us try a = 5. Then we have 555 mod 221 = 112, which is neither 1 nor 220 (555)2 mod 221 = 168. Because we have used all values of j (i.e., j = 0 and j = 1) in line 4 of the TEST algorithm, the test returns composite, indicating that 221 is definitely a composite number. But suppose we had selected a = 21. Then we have 2155 mod 221 = 200; (2155)2 mod 221 = 220; and the test returns inconclusive, indicating that 221 may be prime. In fact, of the 218 integers from 2 through 219, four of these will return an inconclusive result, namely 21, 47, 174, and 200.

R EPEATED U SE OF THE M ILLER -R ABIN A LGORITHM How can we use the MillerRabin algorithm to determine with a high degree of confidence whether or not an integer is prime? It can be shown [KNUT98] that given an odd number n that is not prime and a randomly chosen integer, a with 1 6 a 6 n - 1, the probability that TEST will return inconclusive (i.e., fail to detect that n is not prime) is less than 1/4. Thus, if t different values of a are chosen, the probability that all of them will

254

CHAPTER 8 / INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY

pass TEST (return inconclusive) for n is less than (1/4)t. For example, for t = 10, the probability that a nonprime number will pass all ten tests is less than 10-6. Thus, for a sufficiently large value of t, we can be confident that n is prime if Miller’s test always returns inconclusive. This gives us a basis for determining whether an odd integer n is prime with a reasonable degree of confidence. The procedure is as follows: Repeatedly invoke TEST (n) using randomly chosen values for a. If, at any point, TEST returns composite, then n is determined to be nonprime. If TEST continues to return inconclusive for t tests, then for a sufficiently large value of t, assume that n is prime.

A Deterministic Primality Algorithm Prior to 2002, there was no known method of efficiently proving the primality of very large numbers. All of the algorithms in use, including the most popular (Miller-Rabin), produced a probabilistic result. In 2002, Agrawal, Kayal, and Saxena [AGRA02] developed a relatively simple deterministic algorithm that efficiently determines whether a given large number is a prime. The algorithm, known as the AKS algorithm, does not appear to be as efficient as the Miller-Rabin algorithm. Thus far, it has not supplanted this older, probabilistic technique [BORN03].

Distribution of Primes It is worth noting how many numbers are likely to be rejected before a prime number is found using the Miller-Rabin test, or any other test for primality.A result from number theory, known as the prime number theorem, states that the primes near n are spaced on the average one every (ln n) integers. Thus, on average, one would have to test on the order of ln(n) integers before a prime is found. Because all even integers can be immediately rejected, the correct figure is 0.5 ln(n). For example, if a prime on the order of magnitude of 2200 were sought, then about 0.5 ln(2200) = 69 trials would be needed to find a prime. However, this figure is just an average. In some places along the number line, primes are closely packed, and in other places there are large gaps. The two consecutive odd integers 1,000,000,000,061 and 1,000,000,000,063 are both prime. On the other hand, 1001! + 2, 1001! + 3, ... , 1001! + 1000, 1001! + 1001 is a sequence of 1000 consecutive composite integers.

8.4 THE CHINESE REMAINDER THEOREM One of the most useful results of number theory is the Chinese remainder theorem (CRT).8 In essence, the CRT says it is possible to reconstruct integers in a certain range from their residues modulo a set of pairwise relatively prime moduli.

8

The CRT is so called because it is believed to have been discovered by the Chinese mathematician Sun-Tsu in around 100 A.D.

8.4 / THE CHINESE REMAINDER THEOREM

255

The 10 integers in Z10, that is the integers 0 through 9, can be reconstructed from their two residues modulo 2 and 5 (the relatively prime factors of 10). Say the known residues of a decimal digit x are r2 = 0 and r5 = 3; that is, x mod 2 = 0 and x mod 5 = 3. Therefore, x is an even integer in Z10 whose remainder, on division by 5, is 3. The unique solution is x = 8.

The CRT can be stated in several ways. We present here a formulation that is most useful from the point of view of this text. An alternative formulation is explored in Problem 8.17. Let k

M = q mi i=1

where the mi are pairwise relatively prime; that is, gcd(mi, mj) = 1 for 1 … i, j … k, and i Z j. We can represent any integer A in ZM by a k-tuple whose elements are in Zmi using the following correspondence: A 4 (a1, a2, Á , ak)

(8.7)

where A 僆 ZM, ai 僆 Zmi, and ai = A mod mi for 1 … i … k. The CRT makes two assertions. 1. The mapping of Equation (8.7) is a one-to-one correspondence (called a bijection) between ZM and the Cartesian product Zm1 * Zm2 * Á * Zmk. That is, for every integer A such that 0 … A … M, there is a unique k-tuple (a1, a2, Á , ak) with 0 … ai 6 mi that represents it, and for every such k-tuple (a1, a2, Á , ak), there is a unique integer A in ZM. 2. Operations performed on the elements of ZM can be equivalently performed on the corresponding k-tuples by performing the operation independently in each coordinate position in the appropriate system. Let us demonstrate the first assertion. The transformation from A to (a1, a2, Á , ak), is obviously unique; that is, each ai is uniquely calculated as ai = A mod mi. Computing A from (a1, a2, Á , ak) can be done as follows. Let Mi = M/mi for 1 … i … k. Note that Mi = m1 * m2 * Á * mi - 1 * mi + 1 * Á * mk, so that Mi K 0 (mod mj) for all j Z i. Then let ci = Mi * A Mi-1 mod mi B

for 1 … i … k

(8.8)

By the definition of Mi, it is relatively prime to mi and therefore has a unique multiplicative inverse mod mi. So Equation (8.8) is well defined and produces a unique value ci. We can now compute k

A K £ a aici ≥(mod M) i-1

(8.9)

256

CHAPTER 8 / INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY

To show that the value of A produced by Equation (8.9) is correct, we must show that ai = A mod mi for 1 … i … k. Note that cj K Mj K 0 (mod mi) if j Z i, and that ci K 1 (mod mi). It follows that ai = A mod mi. The second assertion of the CRT, concerning arithmetic operations, follows from the rules for modular arithmetic.That is, the second assertion can be stated as follows: If A 4 (a1, a2, Á , ak) B 4 (b1, b2, Á , bk) then (A + B) mod M 4 ((a1 + b1) mod m1, Á , (ak + bk) mod mk) (A - B) mod M 4 ((a1 - b1) mod m1, Á , (ak - bk) mod mk) (A * B) mod M 4 ((a1 * b1) mod m1, Á , (ak * bk) mod mk) One of the useful features of the Chinese remainder theorem is that it provides a way to manipulate (potentially very large) numbers mod M in terms of tuples of smaller numbers. This can be useful when M is 150 digits or more. However, note that it is necessary to know beforehand the factorization of M. To represent 973 mod 1813 as a pair of numbers mod 37 and 49, define9 m1 = 37 m2 = 49 M = 1813 A = 973 We also have M1 = 49 and M2 = 37. Using the extended Euclidean algorithm, we compute M1-1 = 34 mod m1 and M2-1 = 4 mod m2. (Note that we only need to compute each Mi and each Mi-1 once.) Taking residues modulo 37 and 49, our representation of 973 is (11, 42), because 973 mod 37 = 11 and 973 mod 49 = 42. Now suppose we want to add 678 to 973. What do we do to (11, 42)? First we compute (678) 4 (678 mod 37, 678 mod 49) = (12, 41). Then we add the tuples element-wise and reduce (11 + 12 mod 37, 42 + 41 mod 49) = (23, 34). To verify that this has the correct effect, we compute (23, 34) 4 a1M1M1-1 + a2M2M2-1 mod M = [(23)(49)(34) + (34)(37)(4)] mod 1813 = 43350 mod 1813 = 1651 and check that it is equal to (973 + 678) mod 1813 = 1651. Remember that in the above derivation, Mi-1 is the multiplicative inverse of M1 modulo m1 modulo M2-1 is the multiplicative inverse of M2 modulo m2. 9

This example was provided by Professor Ken Calvert of Georgia Tech.

8.5 / DISCRETE LOGARITHMS

257

Suppose we want to multiply 1651 (mod 1813) by 73. We multiply (23, 34) by 73 and reduce to get (23 * 73 mod 37, 34 * 73 mod 49) = (14, 32). It is easily verified that (14, 32) 4 [(14)(49)(34) + (32)(37)(4)] mod 1813 = 865 = 1651 * 73 mod 1813

8.5 DISCRETE LOGARITHMS Discrete logarithms are fundamental to a number of public-key algorithms, including Diffie-Hellman key exchange and the digital signature algorithm (DSA). This section provides a brief overview of discrete logarithms. For the interested reader, more detailed developments of this topic can be found in [ORE67] and [LEVE90].

The Powers of an Integer, Modulo n Recall from Euler’s theorem [Equation (8.4)] that, for every a and n that are relatively prime, af(n) K 1 (mod n) where f(n), Euler’s totient function, is the number of positive integers less than n and relatively prime to n. Now consider the more general expression: am K 1 (mod n)

(8.10)

If a and n are relatively prime, then there is at least one integer m that satisfies Equation (8.10), namely, M = f(n). The least positive exponent m for which Equation (8.10) holds is referred to in several ways: • The order of a (mod n) • The exponent to which a belongs (mod n) • The length of the period generated by a

To see this last point, consider the powers of 7, modulo 19: 71 K

7 (mod 19)

72 = 49 = 2 * 19 + 11

K

11 (mod 19)

73 = 343 = 18 * 19 + 1

K

1 (mod 19)

74 = 2401 = 126 * 19 + 7

K

7 (mod 19)

75 = 16807 = 884 * 19 + 11 K

11 (mod 19)

258

CHAPTER 8 / INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY

There is no point in continuing because the sequence is repeating. This can be proven by noting that 73 K 1(mod 19), and therefore, 73 + j K 737j K 7j(mod 19), and hence, any two powers of 7 whose exponents differ by 3 (or a multiple of 3) are congruent to each other (mod 19). In other words, the sequence is periodic, and the length of the period is the smallest positive exponent m such that 7m K 1(mod 19).

Table 8.3 shows all the powers of a, modulo 19 for all positive a 6 19.The length of the sequence for each base value is indicated by shading. Note the following: 1. All sequences end in 1. This is consistent with the reasoning of the preceding few paragraphs. 2. The length of a sequence divides f(19) = 18. That is, an integral number of sequences occur in each row of the table. 3. Some of the sequences are of length 18. In this case, it is said that the base integer a generates (via powers) the set of nonzero integers modulo 19. Each such integer is called a primitive root of the modulus 19.

Table 8.3 Powers of Integers, Modulo 19 a

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

a7

a8

a9

a10

a11

a12

a13

a14

a15

a16

a17 a18

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

4

8

16

13

7

14

9

18

17

15

11

3

6

12

5

10

1

3

9

8

5

15

7

2

6

18

16

10

11

14

4

12

17

13

1

4

16

7

9

17

11

6

5

1

4

16

7

9

17

11

6

5

1

5

6

11

17

9

7

16

4

1

5

6

11

17

9

7

16

4

1

6

17

7

4

5

11

9

16

1

6

17

7

4

5

11

9

16

1

7

11

1

7

11

1

7

11

1

7

11

1

7

11

1

7

11

1

8

7

18

11

12

1

8

7

18

11

12

1

8

7

18

11

12

1

9

5

7

6

16

11

4

17

1

9

5

7

6

16

11

4

17

1

10

5

12

6

3

11

15

17

18

9

14

7

13

16

8

4

2

1

11

7

1

11

7

1

11

7

1

11

7

1

11

7

1

11

7

1

12

11

18

7

8

1

12

11

18

7

8

1

12

11

18

7

8

1

13

17

12

4

14

11

10

16

18

6

2

7

15

5

8

9

3

1

14

6

8

17

10

7

3

4

18

5

13

11

2

9

12

16

15

1

15

16

12

9

2

11

13

5

18

4

3

7

10

17

8

6

14

1

16

9

11

5

4

7

17

6

1

16

9

11

5

4

7

17

6

1

17

4

11

16

6

7

5

9

1

17

4

11

16

6

7

5

9

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

18

1

8.5 / DISCRETE LOGARITHMS

259

More generally, we can say that the highest possible exponent to which a number can belong (mod n) is f(n). If a number is of this order, it is referred to as a primitive root of n. The importance of this notion is that if a is a primitive root of n, then its powers a, a2, Á , af(n) are distinct (mod n) and are all relatively prime to n. In particular, for a prime number p, if a is a primitive root of p, then a, a2, Á , ap - 1 are distinct (mod p). For the prime number 19, its primitive roots are 2, 3, 10, 13, 14, and 15. Not all integers have primitive roots. In fact, the only integers with primitive roots are those of the form 2, 4, pa, and 2pa, where p is any odd prime and a is a positive integer. The proof is not simple but can be found in many number theory books, including [ORE76].

Logarithms for Modular Arithmetic With ordinary positive real numbers, the logarithm function is the inverse of exponentiation. An analogous function exists for modular arithmetic. Let us briefly review the properties of ordinary logarithms. The logarithm of a number is defined to be the power to which some positive base (except 1) must be raised in order to equal the number. That is, for base x and for a value y, y = xlogx(y) The properties of logarithms include logx(1) = 0 logx(x) = 1 logx(yz) = logx(y) + logx(z)

(8.11)

logx(yr) = r * logx(y)

(8.12)

Consider a primitive root a for some prime number p (the argument can be developed for nonprimes as well). Then we know that the powers of a from 1 through (p - 1) produce each integer from 1 through (p - 1) exactly once. We also know that any integer b satisfies b K r (mod p) for some r, where 0 … r … (p - 1) by the definition of modular arithmetic. It follows that for any integer b and a primitive root a of prime number p, we can find a unique exponent i such that b K ai(mod p)

where 0 … i … (p - 1)

260

CHAPTER 8 / INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY

This exponent i is referred to as the discrete logarithm of the number b for the base a (mod p). We denote this value as dloga,p(b).10 Note the following: dloga,p(1) = 0

because a0 mod p = 1 mod p = 1

(8.13)

dloga,p(a) = 1

because a1 mod p = a

(8.14)

Here is an example using a nonprime modulus, n = 9. Here f(n) = 6 and a = 2 is a primitive root. We compute the various powers of a and find 20 = 1

24 K 7 (mod 9)

21 = 2

25 K 5 (mod 9)

22 = 4

26 K 1 (mod 9)

23 = 8 This gives us the following table of the numbers with given discrete logarithms (mod 9) for the root a = 2: Logarithm

0

1

2

3

4

5

Number

1

2

4

8

7

5

To make it easy to obtain the discrete logarithms of a given number, we rearrange the table: Number

1

2

4

5

7

8

Logarithm

0

1

2

5

4

3

Now consider x = adloga,p(x) mod p

y = adloga,p(y) mod p

xy = adloga,p(xy) mod p Using the rules of modular multiplication, xy mod p = [(x mod p)(y mod p)]mod p adloga,p(xy) mod p =

C A adloga,p(x) mod p B A adloga,p(y) mod p B D mod p

= A adloga,p(x) + dloga,p(y) B mod p But now consider Euler’s theorem, which states that, for every a and n that are relatively prime, af(n) K 1 (mod n) 10 Many texts refer to the discrete logarithm as the index. There is no generally agreed notation for this concept, much less an agreed name.

8.5 / DISCRETE LOGARITHMS

261

Any positive integer z can be expressed in the form z = q + kf(n), with 0 … q 6 f(n). Therefore, by Euler’s theorem, az K aq(mod n)

if z K q mod f(n)

Applying this to the foregoing equality, we have dloga,p(xy) K [dloga,p(x) + dloga,p(y)](modf(p)) and generalizing, dloga,p(yr) K [r * dloga,p(y)](mod f(p)) This demonstrates the analogy between true logarithms and discrete logarithms. Keep in mind that unique discrete logarithms mod m to some base a exist only if a is a primitive root of m. Table 8.4, which is directly derived from Table 8.3, shows the sets of discrete logarithms that can be defined for modulus 19. Table 8.4 Tables of Discrete Logarithms, Modulo 19 (a) Discrete logarithms to the base 2, modulo 19 a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

log2,19(a)

18

1

13

2

16

14

6

3

8

17

12

15

5

7

11

4

10

9

(b) Discrete logarithms to the base 3, modulo 19 a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

log3,19(a)

18

7

1

14

4

8

6

3

2

11

12

15

17

13

5

10

16

9

(c) Discrete logarithms to the base 10, modulo 19 a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

log10,19(a)

18

17

5

16

2

4

12

15

10

1

6

3

13

11

7

14

8

9

(d) Discrete logarithms to the base 13, modulo 19 a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

log13,19(a)

18

11

17

4

14

10

12

15

16

7

6

3

1

5

13

8

2

9

(e) Discrete logarithms to the base 14, modulo 19 a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

log14,19(a)

18

13

7

8

10

2

6

3

14

5

12

15

11

1

17

16

4

9

(f) Discrete logarithms to the base 15, modulo 19 a

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

log15,19(a)

18

5

11

10

8

16

12

15

4

13

6

3

7

17

1

2

14

9

262

CHAPTER 8 / INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY

Calculation of Discrete Logarithms Consider the equation y = gx mod p Given g, x, and p, it is a straightforward matter to calculate y. At the worst, we must perform x repeated multiplications, and algorithms exist for achieving greater efficiency (see Chapter 9). However, given y, g, and p, it is, in general, very difficult to calculate x (take the discrete logarithm). The difficulty seems to be on the same order of magnitude as that of factoring primes required for RSA. At the time of this writing, the asymptotically fastest known algorithm for taking discrete logarithms modulo a prime number is on the order of [BETH91]: 1/3 2/3 e ((ln p) (ln(ln p)) )) which is not feasible for large primes.

8.6 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITE There are many basic texts on the subject of number theory that provide far more detail than most readers of this book will desire. An elementary but nevertheless useful short introduction is [ORE67]. For the reader interested in a more in-depth treatment, two excellent textbooks on the subject are [KUMA98] and [ROSE05]. [LEVE90] is a readable and detailed account as well. All of these books include problems with solutions, enhancing their value for self-study. For readers willing to commit the time, perhaps the best way to get a solid grasp of the fundamentals of number theory is to work their way through [BURN97], which consists solely of a series of exercises with solutions that lead the student step-by-step through the concepts of number theory; working through all of the exercises is equivalent to completing an undergraduate course in number theory.

BURN97 Burn, R. A Pathway to Number Theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1997. KUMA98 Kumanduri, R., and Romero, C. Number Theory with Computer Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998. LEVE90 Leveque, W. Elementary Theory of Numbers. New York: Dover, 1990. ORE67 Ore, O. Invitation to Number Theory. Washington, D.C.: The Mathematical Association of America, 1967. ROSE05 Rosen, K. Elementary Number Theory and its Applications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2000.

Recommended Web Site: • The Prime Pages: Prime number research, records, and resources.

8.7 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

263

8.7 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms bijection composite number Chinese remainder theorem discrete logarithm

Euler’s theorem Euler’s totient function Fermat’s theorem index

order prime number primitive root

Review Questions 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6

What is a prime number? What is the meaning of the expression a divides b? What is Euler’s totient function? The Miller-Rabin test can determine if a number is not prime but cannot determine if a number is prime. How can such an algorithm be used to test for primality? What is a primitive root of a number? What is the difference between an index and a discrete logarithm?

Problems 8.1

8.2

The purpose of this problem is to determine how many prime numbers there are. Suppose there are a total of n prime numbers, and we list these in order: p1 = 2 6 p2 = 3 6 p3 = 5 6 Á 6 pn. a. Define X = 1 + p1 p2 Á pn. That is, X is equal to one plus the product of all the primes. Can we find a prime number Pm that divides X? b. What can you say about m? c. Deduce that the total number of primes cannot be finite. d. Show that Pn + 1 … 1 + p1 p2 Á pn. The purpose of this problem is to demonstrate that the probability that two random numbers are relatively prime is about 0.6. a. Let P = Pr[gcd(a, b) = 1] . Show that P = Pr[gcd(a, b) = d] = P/d2 . Hint: a b , b. d d b. The sum of the result of part (a) over all possible values of d is 1. That is Consider the quantity gcd a

8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7

dÚ1

Pr[gcd(a, b) = d] = 1. Use this equality to determine the value of P. Hint: q 1 p2 Use the identity a 2 = . 6 i=1 i Why is gcd(n, n + 1) = 1 for two consecutive integers n and n + 1? Using Fermat’s theorem, find 3201 mod 11. Use Fermat’s theorem to find a number a between 0 and 72 with a congruent to 9794 modulo 73. Use Fermat’s theorem to find a number x between 0 and 28 with x85 congruent to 6 modulo 29. (You should not need to use any brute-force searching.) Use Euler’s theorem to find a number a between 0 and 9 such that a is congruent to 71000 modulo 10. (Note: This is the same as the last digit of the decimal expansion of 71000.) g

264

CHAPTER 8 / INTRODUCTION TO NUMBER THEORY 8.8 8.9 8.10 8.11

8.12

Use Euler’s theorem to find a number x between 0 and 28 with x85 congruent to 6 modulo 35. (You should not need to use any brute-force searching.) Notice in Table 8.2 that f(n) is even for n 7 2. This is true for all n 7 2. Give a concise argument why this is so. Prove the following: If p is prime, then f(pi) = pi - pi - 1. Hint: What numbers have a factor in common with pi? It can be shown (see any book on number theory) that if gcd(m, n) = 1 then f(mn) = f(m)f(n). Using this property, the property developed in the preceding problem, and the property that f(p) = p - 1 for p prime, it is straightforward to determine the value of f(n) for any n. Determine the following: a. f(41) b. f(27) c. f(231) d. f(440) It can also be shown that for arbitrary positive integer a, f(a) is given by t

f(a) = q [pai i - 1(pi - 1)] i=1

8.13 8.14

8.15 8.16

8.17

where a is given by Equation (8.1), namely: a = Pa11 Pa22 Á Pat t. Demonstrate this result. Consider the function: f(n) = number of elements in the set {a: 0 … a 6 n and gcd(a, n) = 1}. What is this function? Although ancient Chinese mathematicians did good work coming up with their remainder theorem, they did not always get it right. They had a test for primality. The test said that n is prime if and only if n divides (2n - 2). a. Give an example that satisfies the condition using an odd prime. b. The condition is obviously true for n = 2. Prove that the condition is true if n is an odd prime (proving the if condition) c. Give an example of an odd n that is not prime and that does not satisfy the condition. You can do this with nonprime numbers up to a very large value. This misled the Chinese mathematicians into thinking that if the condition is true then n is prime. d. Unfortunately, the ancient Chinese never tried n = 341 , which is nonprime (341 = 11 * 31), yet 341 divides 2341 - 2 without remainder. Demonstrate that 2341 K 2 (mod 341) (disproving the only if condition). Hint: It is not necessary to calculate 2341; play around with the congruences instead. Show that, if n is an odd composite integer, then the Miller-Rabin test will return inconclusive for a = 1 and a = (n - 1). If n is composite and passes the Miller-Rabin test for the base a , then n is called a strong pseudoprime to the base a . Show that 2047 is a strong pseudoprime to the base 2. A common formulation of the Chinese remainder theorem (CRT) is as follows: Let m1, Á , mk be integers that are pairwise relatively prime for 1 … i, j … k, and i Z j. Define M to be the product of all the mi ¿ s. Let a1, Á , ak be integers. Then the set of congruences: x K a1(mod m1)

# # #

x K a2(mod m2)

x K ak(mod mk) has a unique solution modulo M. Show that the theorem stated in this form is true.

8.7 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS 8.18

8.19

8.20 8.21

265

The example used by Sun-Tsu to illustrate the CRT was x K 2 (mod 3); x K 3 (mod 5); x K 2 (mod 7) Solve for x. Six professors begin courses on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, respectively, and announce their intentions of lecturing at intervals of 2, 3, 4, 1, 6, and 5 days, respectively. The regulations of the university forbid Sunday lectures (so that a Sunday lecture must be omitted). When first will all six professors find themselves compelled to omit a lecture? Hint: Use the CRT. Find all primitive roots of 25. Given 2 as a primitive root of 29, construct a table of discrete logarithms, and use it to solve the following congruences. a. 17x2 K 10 (mod 29) b. x2 - 4x - 16 K 0 (mod 29) c. x7 K 17 (mod 29)

Programming Problems 8.22 8.23

Write a computer program that implements fast exponentiation (successive squaring) modulo n. Write a computer program that implements the Miller-Rabin algorithm for a userspecified n. The program should allow the user two choices: (1) specify a possible witness a to test using the Witness procedure or (2) specify a number s of random witnesses for the Miller-Rabin test to check.

CHAPTER

PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA 9.1

Principles Of Public-Key Cryptosystems Public-Key Cryptosystems Applications for Public-Key Cryptosystems Requirements for Public-Key Cryptography Public-Key Cryptanalysis

9.2

The RSA Algorithm Description of the Algorithm Computational Aspects The Security of RSA

9.3

Recommended Reading and Web Site

9.4

Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

Appendix 9A Proof Of the RSA Algorithm Appendix 9B The Complexity Of Algorithms

266

9.1 / PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

267

Every Egyptian received two names, which were known respectively as the true name and the good name, or the great name and the little name; and while the good or little name was made public, the true or great name appears to have been carefully concealed. —The Golden Bough, Sir James George Frazer

KEY POINTS ◆

◆

◆ ◆

Asymmetric encryption is a form of cryptosystem in which encryption and decryption are performed using the different keys—one a public key and one a private key. It is also known as public-key encryption. Asymmetric encryption transforms plaintext into ciphertext using a one of two keys and an encryption algorithm. Using the paired key and a decryption algorithm, the plaintext is recovered from the ciphertext. Asymmetric encryption can be used for confidentiality, authentication, or both. The most widely used public-key cryptosystem is RSA. The difficulty of attacking RSA is based on the difficulty of finding the prime factors of a composite number.

The development of public-key cryptography is the greatest and perhaps the only true revolution in the entire history of cryptography. From its earliest beginnings to modern times, virtually all cryptographic systems have been based on the elementary tools of substitution and permutation. After millennia of working with algorithms that could be calculated by hand, a major advance in symmetric cryptography occurred with the development of the rotor encryption/decryption machine. The electromechanical rotor enabled the development of fiendishly complex cipher systems. With the availability of computers, even more complex systems were devised, the most prominent of which was the Lucifer effort at IBM that culminated in the Data Encryption Standard (DES). But both rotor machines and DES, although representing significant advances, still relied on the bread-and-butter tools of substitution and permutation. Public-key cryptography provides a radical departure from all that has gone before. For one thing, public-key algorithms are based on mathematical functions rather than on substitution and permutation. More important, public-key cryptography is asymmetric, involving the use of two separate keys, in contrast to symmetric encryption, which uses only one key. The use of two keys has profound consequences in the areas of confidentiality, key distribution, and authentication, as we shall see. Before proceeding, we should mention several common misconceptions concerning public-key encryption. One such misconception is that public-key encryption is more secure from cryptanalysis than is symmetric encryption. In fact, the security of any encryption scheme depends on the length of the key and the computational work

268

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

involved in breaking a cipher. There is nothing in principle about either symmetric or public-key encryption that makes one superior to another from the point of view of resisting cryptanalysis. A second misconception is that public-key encryption is a general-purpose technique that has made symmetric encryption obsolete. On the contrary, because of the computational overhead of current public-key encryption schemes, there seems no foreseeable likelihood that symmetric encryption will be abandoned. As one of the inventors of public-key encryption has put it [DIFF88], “the restriction of public-key cryptography to key management and signature applications is almost universally accepted.” Finally, there is a feeling that key distribution is trivial when using public-key encryption, compared to the rather cumbersome handshaking involved with key distribution centers for symmetric encryption. In fact, some form of protocol is needed, generally involving a central agent, and the procedures involved are not simpler nor any more efficient than those required for symmetric encryption (e.g., see analysis in [NEED78]). This chapter and the next provide an overview of public-key cryptography. First, we look at its conceptual framework. Interestingly, the concept for this technique was developed and published before it was shown to be practical to adopt it. Next, we examine the RSA algorithm, which is the most important encryption/decryption algorithm that has been shown to be feasible for public-key encryption. Other important public-key cryptographic algorithms are covered in Chapter 10. Much of the theory of public-key cryptosystems is based on number theory. If one is prepared to accept the results given in this chapter, an understanding of number theory is not strictly necessary. However, to gain a full appreciation of public-key algorithms, some understanding of number theory is required. Chapter 8 provides the necessary background in number theory. Table 9.1 defines some key terms.

Table 9.1 Terminology Related to Asymmetric Encryption Asymmetric Keys Two related keys, a public key and a private key, that are used to perform complementary operations, such as encryption and decryption or signature generation and signature verification. Public Key Certificate A digital document issued and digitally signed by the private key of a Certification Authority that binds the name of a subscriber to a public key. The certificate indicates that the subscriber identified in the certificate has sole control and access to the corresponding private key. Public Key (Asymmetric) Cryptographic Algorithm A cryptographic algorithm that uses two related keys, a public key and a private key. The two keys have the property that deriving the private key from the public key is computationally infeasible. Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) A set of policies, processes, server platforms, software and workstations used for the purpose of administering certificates and public-private key pairs, including the ability to issue, maintain, and revoke public key certificates. Source: Glossary of Key Information Security Terms, NIST IR 7298 [KISS06]

9.1 / PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

269

9.1 PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS The concept of public-key cryptography evolved from an attempt to attack two of the most difficult problems associated with symmetric encryption. The first problem is that of key distribution, which is examined in some detail in Chapter 14. As Chapter 14 discusses, key distribution under symmetric encryption requires either (1) that two communicants already share a key, which somehow has been distributed to them; or (2) the use of a key distribution center. Whitfield Diffie, one of the discoverers of public-key encryption (along with Martin Hellman, both at Stanford University at the time), reasoned that this second requirement negated the very essence of cryptography: the ability to maintain total secrecy over your own communication. As Diffie put it [DIFF88], “what good would it do after all to develop impenetrable cryptosystems, if their users were forced to share their keys with a KDC that could be compromised by either burglary or subpoena?” The second problem that Diffie pondered, and one that was apparently unrelated to the first, was that of digital signatures. If the use of cryptography was to become widespread, not just in military situations but for commercial and private purposes, then electronic messages and documents would need the equivalent of signatures used in paper documents. That is, could a method be devised that would stipulate, to the satisfaction of all parties, that a digital message had been sent by a particular person? This is a somewhat broader requirement than that of authentication, and its characteristics and ramifications are explored in Chapter 13. Diffie and Hellman achieved an astounding breakthrough in 1976 [DIFF76 a, b] by coming up with a method that addressed both problems and was radically different from all previous approaches to cryptography, going back over four millennia.1 In the next subsection, we look at the overall framework for public-key cryptography. Then we examine the requirements for the encryption/decryption algorithm that is at the heart of the scheme.

Public-Key Cryptosystems Asymmetric algorithms rely on one key for encryption and a different but related key for decryption. These algorithms have the following important characteristic. • It is computationally infeasible to determine the decryption key given only knowledge of the cryptographic algorithm and the encryption key.

1 Diffie and Hellman first publicly introduced the concepts of public-key cryptography in 1976. Hellman credits Merkle with independently discovering the concept at that same time, although Merkle did not publish until 1978 [MERK78a]. In fact, the first unclassified document describing public-key distribution and public-key cryptography was a 1974 project proposal by Merkle (http://merkle.com/1974). However, this is not the true beginning. Admiral Bobby Inman, while director of the National Security Agency (NSA), claimed that public-key cryptography had been discovered at NSA in the mid-1960s [SIMM93]. The first documented introduction of these concepts came in 1970, from the Communications-Electronics Security Group, Britain’s counterpart to NSA, in a classified report by James Ellis [ELLI70]. Ellis referred to the technique as nonsecret encryption and describes the discovery in [ELLI99].

270

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

In addition, some algorithms, such as RSA, also exhibit the following characteristic. • Either of the two related keys can be used for encryption, with the other used for decryption. A public-key encryption scheme has six ingredients (Figure 9.1a; compare with Figure 2.1).

Bobs's public key ring Joy

Ted Alice

Mike PUa

Alice's public key

PRa

Alice's private key X= D[PRa, Y]

Transmitted ciphertext

X

Y = E[PUa, X] Plaintext input

Encryption algorithm (e.g., RSA) Bob

Decryption algorithm

(a) Encryption with public key

Plaintext output

Alice

Alice's public key ring Joy

Ted Bob

Mike PRb

PUb

Bob's private key

X= D[PUb, Y]

Transmitted ciphertext

X

Bob's public key

Y = E[PRb, X] Plaintext input

Encryption algorithm (e.g., RSA) Bob

Figure 9.1

Decryption algorithm

(b) Encryption with private key

Public-Key Cryptography

Alice

Plaintext output

9.1 / PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

271

• Plaintext: This is the readable message or data that is fed into the algorithm as input. • Encryption algorithm: The encryption algorithm performs various transformations on the plaintext. • Public and private keys: This is a pair of keys that have been selected so that if one is used for encryption, the other is used for decryption. The exact transformations performed by the algorithm depend on the public or private key that is provided as input. • Ciphertext: This is the scrambled message produced as output. It depends on the plaintext and the key. For a given message, two different keys will produce two different ciphertexts. • Decryption algorithm: This algorithm accepts the ciphertext and the matching key and produces the original plaintext. The essential steps are the following. 1. Each user generates a pair of keys to be used for the encryption and decryption of messages. 2. Each user places one of the two keys in a public register or other accessible file. This is the public key.The companion key is kept private.As Figure 9.1a suggests, each user maintains a collection of public keys obtained from others. 3. If Bob wishes to send a confidential message to Alice, Bob encrypts the message using Alice’s public key. 4. When Alice receives the message, she decrypts it using her private key. No other recipient can decrypt the message because only Alice knows Alice’s private key. With this approach, all participants have access to public keys, and private keys are generated locally by each participant and therefore need never be distributed. As long as a user’s private key remains protected and secret, incoming communication is secure. At any time, a system can change its private key and publish the companion public key to replace its old public key. Table 9.2 summarizes some of the important aspects of symmetric and publickey encryption. To discriminate between the two, we refer to the key used in symmetric encryption as a secret key. The two keys used for asymmetric encryption are referred to as the public key and the private key.2 Invariably, the private key is kept secret, but it is referred to as a private key rather than a secret key to avoid confusion with symmetric encryption. Let us take a closer look at the essential elements of a public-key encryption scheme, using Figure 9.2 (compare with Figure 2.2). There is some source A that

2

The following notation is used consistently throughout. A secret key is represented by Km, where m is some modifier; for example, Ka is a secret key owned by user A. A public key is represented by PUa, for user A, and the corresponding private key is PRa. Encryption of plaintext X can be performed with a secret key, a public key, or a private key, denoted by E(Ka, X), E(PUa, X), and E(PRa, X), respectively. Similarly, decryption of ciphertext C can be performed with a secret key, a public key, or a private key, denoted by D(Ka, X), D(PUa, X), and D(PRa, X), respectively.

272

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

Table 9.2 Conventional and Public-Key Encryption Conventional Encryption

Public-Key Encryption

Needed to Work:

Needed to Work:

1. The same algorithm with the same key is used for encryption and decryption. 2. The sender and receiver must share the algorithm and the key.

1. One algorithm is used for encryption and decryption with a pair of keys, one for encryption and one for decryption. 2. The sender and receiver must each have one of the matched pair of keys (not the same one).

Needed for Security: 1. The key must be kept secret. 2. It must be impossible or at least impractical to decipher a message if no other information is available. 3. Knowledge of the algorithm plus samples of ciphertext must be insufficient to determine the key.

Needed for Security: 1. One of the two keys must be kept secret. 2. It must be impossible or at least impractical to decipher a message if no other information is available. 3. Knowledge of the algorithm plus one of the keys plus samples of ciphertext must be insufficient to determine the other key.

produces a message in plaintext, X = [X1, X2, . . . , XM]. The M elements of X are letters in some finite alphabet. The message is intended for destination B. B generates a related pair of keys: a public key, PUb, and a private key, PRb. PRb is known only to B, whereas PUb is publicly available and therefore accessible by A. With the message X and the encryption key PUb as input, A forms the ciphertext Y = [Y1, Y2, . . . , YN]: Y = E(PUb, X)

Cryptanalyst

Source A

Message source

X

^ X ^ PRb

Destination B

Encryption algorithm

Y = E[PUb, X]

Decryption algorithm

PUb

PRb Key pair source

Figure 9.2

Public-Key Cryptosystem: Secrecy

Destination X= D[PRb, Y]

9.1 / PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

273

The intended receiver, in possession of the matching private key, is able to invert the transformation: X = D(PRb, Y) An adversary, observing Y and having access to PUb, but not having access to PRb or X, must attempt to recover X and/or PRb. It is assumed that the adversary does have knowledge of the encryption (E) and decryption (D) algorithms. If the adversary is interested only in this particular message, then the focus of effort is to recover X by generating a plaintext estimate Xˆ. Often, however, the adversary is interested in being able to read future messages as well, in which case an attempt is made to recover PRb by generating an estimate PRˆb. We mentioned earlier that either of the two related keys can be used for encryption, with the other being used for decryption. This enables a rather different cryptographic scheme to be implemented. Whereas the scheme illustrated in Figure 9.2 provides confidentiality, Figures 9.1b and 9.3 show the use of public-key encryption to provide authentication: Y = E(PRa, X) X = D(PUa, Y) In this case, A prepares a message to B and encrypts it using A’s private key before transmitting it. B can decrypt the message using A’s public key. Because the message was encrypted using A’s private key, only A could have prepared the message. Therefore, the entire encrypted message serves as a digital signature. In addition, it is impossible to alter the message without access to A’s private key, so the message is authenticated both in terms of source and in terms of data integrity.

Cryptanalyst

Source A

Message source

X

Destination B

Encryption algorithm

PRa

Y = E[PRa, X]

PUa Key pair source

Figure 9.3

^ PRa

Public-Key Cryptosystem: Authentication

Decryption algorithm

Destination X= D[PUa, Y]

274

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

In the preceding scheme, the entire message is encrypted, which, although validating both author and contents, requires a great deal of storage. Each document must be kept in plaintext to be used for practical purposes. A copy also must be stored in ciphertext so that the origin and contents can be verified in case of a dispute. A more efficient way of achieving the same results is to encrypt a small block of bits that is a function of the document. Such a block, called an authenticator, must have the property that it is infeasible to change the document without changing the authenticator. If the authenticator is encrypted with the sender’s private key, it serves as a signature that verifies origin, content, and sequencing. Chapter 13 examines this technique in detail. It is important to emphasize that the encryption process depicted in Figures 9.1b and 9.3 does not provide confidentiality. That is, the message being sent is safe from alteration but not from eavesdropping. This is obvious in the case of a signature based on a portion of the message, because the rest of the message is transmitted in the clear. Even in the case of complete encryption, as shown in Figure 9.3, there is no protection of confidentiality because any observer can decrypt the message by using the sender’s public key. It is, however, possible to provide both the authentication function and confidentiality by a double use of the public-key scheme (Figure 9.4): Z = E(PUb, E(PRa, X)) X = D(PUa, D(PRb, Z)) In this case, we begin as before by encrypting a message, using the sender’s private key. This provides the digital signature. Next, we encrypt again, using the receiver’s public key. The final ciphertext can be decrypted only by the intended receiver, who alone has the matching private key. Thus, confidentiality is provided. The Source A

Message source

X

Encryption algorithm

Destination B

Y

Encryption algorithm

Z

Decryption algorithm

PUb

PRb Key pair source

PRa

PUa Key pair source

Figure 9.4

Public-Key Cryptosystem: Authentication and Secrecy

Y

Decryption algorithm

X

Message dest.

9.1 / PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

275

disadvantage of this approach is that the public-key algorithm, which is complex, must be exercised four times rather than two in each communication.

Applications for Public-Key Cryptosystems Before proceeding, we need to clarify one aspect of public-key cryptosystems that is otherwise likely to lead to confusion. Public-key systems are characterized by the use of a cryptographic algorithm with two keys, one held private and one available publicly. Depending on the application, the sender uses either the sender’s private key or the receiver’s public key, or both, to perform some type of cryptographic function. In broad terms, we can classify the use of public-key cryptosystems into three categories • Encryption /decryption: The sender encrypts a message with the recipient’s public key. • Digital signature: The sender “signs” a message with its private key. Signing is achieved by a cryptographic algorithm applied to the message or to a small block of data that is a function of the message. • Key exchange: Two sides cooperate to exchange a session key. Several different approaches are possible, involving the private key(s) of one or both parties. Some algorithms are suitable for all three applications, whereas others can be used only for one or two of these applications. Table 9.3 indicates the applications supported by the algorithms discussed in this book.

Requirements for Public-Key Cryptography The cryptosystem illustrated in Figures 9.2 through 9.4 depends on a cryptographic algorithm based on two related keys. Diffie and Hellman postulated this system without demonstrating that such algorithms exist. However, they did lay out the conditions that such algorithms must fulfill [DIFF76b]. 1. It is computationally easy for a party B to generate a pair (public key PUb, private key PRb). 2. It is computationally easy for a sender A, knowing the public key and the message to be encrypted, M, to generate the corresponding ciphertext: C = E(PUb, M) Table 9.3 Applications for Public-Key Cryptosystems Algorithm

Encryption/Decryption

Digital Signature

Key Exchange

RSA

Yes

Yes

Yes

Elliptic Curve

Yes

Yes

Yes

Diffie-Hellman

No

No

Yes

DSS

No

Yes

No

276

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

3. It is computationally easy for the receiver B to decrypt the resulting ciphertext using the private key to recover the original message: M = D(PRb, C) = D[PRb, E(PUb, M)] 4. It is computationally infeasible for an adversary, knowing the public key, PUb, to determine the private key, PRb. 5. It is computationally infeasible for an adversary, knowing the public key, PUb, and a ciphertext, C, to recover the original message, M. We can add a sixth requirement that, although useful, is not necessary for all public-key applications: 6. The two keys can be applied in either order: M = D[PUb, E(PRb, M)] = D[PRb, E(PUb, M)] These are formidable requirements, as evidenced by the fact that only a few algorithms (RSA, elliptic curve cryptography, Diffie-Hellman, DSS) have received widespread acceptance in the several decades since the concept of public-key cryptography was proposed. Before elaborating on why the requirements are so formidable, let us first recast them. The requirements boil down to the need for a trap-door one-way function. A one-way function3 is one that maps a domain into a range such that every function value has a unique inverse, with the condition that the calculation of the function is easy, whereas the calculation of the inverse is infeasible: Y = f(X)

easy

-1

X = f (Y) infeasible Generally, easy is defined to mean a problem that can be solved in polynomial time as a function of input length. Thus, if the length of the input is n bits, then the time to compute the function is proportional to na, where a is a fixed constant. Such algorithms are said to belong to the class P. The term infeasible is a much fuzzier concept. In general, we can say a problem is infeasible if the effort to solve it grows faster than polynomial time as a function of input size. For example, if the length of the input is n bits and the time to compute the function is proportional to 2n, the problem is considered infeasible. Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine if a particular algorithm exhibits this complexity. Furthermore, traditional notions of computational complexity focus on the worst-case or average-case complexity of an algorithm. These measures are inadequate for cryptography, which requires that it be infeasible to invert a function for virtually all inputs, not for the worst case or even average case. A brief introduction to some of these concepts is provided in Appendix 9B.

3

Not to be confused with a one-way hash function, which takes an arbitrarily large data field as its argument and maps it to a fixed output. Such functions are used for authentication (see Chapter 11).

9.2 / THE RSA ALGORITHM

277

We now turn to the definition of a trap-door one-way function, which is easy to calculate in one direction and infeasible to calculate in the other direction unless certain additional information is known. With the additional information the inverse can be calculated in polynomial time. We can summarize as follows: A trapdoor one-way function is a family of invertible functions fk, such that Y = fk(X) X = X =

fk- 1(Y) fk- 1(Y)

easy, if k and X are known easy, if k and Y are known infeasible, if Y is known but k is not known

Thus, the development of a practical public-key scheme depends on discovery of a suitable trap-door one-way function.

Public-Key Cryptanalysis As with symmetric encryption, a public-key encryption scheme is vulnerable to a brute-force attack. The countermeasure is the same: Use large keys. However, there is a tradeoff to be considered. Public-key systems depend on the use of some sort of invertible mathematical function. The complexity of calculating these functions may not scale linearly with the number of bits in the key but grow more rapidly than that. Thus, the key size must be large enough to make brute-force attack impractical but small enough for practical encryption and decryption. In practice, the key sizes that have been proposed do make brute-force attack impractical but result in encryption/decryption speeds that are too slow for general-purpose use. Instead, as was mentioned earlier, public-key encryption is currently confined to key management and signature applications. Another form of attack is to find some way to compute the private key given the public key. To date, it has not been mathematically proven that this form of attack is infeasible for a particular public-key algorithm. Thus, any given algorithm, including the widely used RSA algorithm, is suspect. The history of cryptanalysis shows that a problem that seems insoluble from one perspective can be found to have a solution if looked at in an entirely different way. Finally, there is a form of attack that is peculiar to public-key systems. This is, in essence, a probable-message attack. Suppose, for example, that a message were to be sent that consisted solely of a 56-bit DES key. An adversary could encrypt all possible 56-bit DES keys using the public key and could discover the encrypted key by matching the transmitted ciphertext. Thus, no matter how large the key size of the public-key scheme, the attack is reduced to a brute-force attack on a 56-bit key. This attack can be thwarted by appending some random bits to such simple messages.

9.2 THE RSA ALGORITHM The pioneering paper by Diffie and Hellman [DIFF76b] introduced a new approach to cryptography and, in effect, challenged cryptologists to come up with a cryptographic algorithm that met the requirements for public-key systems. A number of

278

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

algorithms have been proposed for public-key cryptography. Some of these, though initially promising, turned out to be breakable.4 One of the first successful responses to the challenge was developed in 1977 by Ron Rivest, Adi Shamir, and Len Adleman at MIT and first published in 1978 [RIVE78].5 The Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) scheme has since that time reigned supreme as the most widely accepted and implemented general-purpose approach to public-key encryption. The RSA scheme is a block cipher in which the plaintext and ciphertext are integers between 0 and n - 1 for some n. A typical size for n is 1024 bits, or 309 decimal digits. That is, n is less than 21024. We examine RSA in this section in some detail, beginning with an explanation of the algorithm. Then we examine some of the computational and cryptanalytical implications of RSA.

Description of the Algorithm RSA makes use of an expression with exponentials. Plaintext is encrypted in blocks, with each block having a binary value less than some number n. That is, the block size must be less than or equal to log2(n) + 1; in practice, the block size is i bits, where 2i 6 n ≤ 2i+1. Encryption and decryption are of the following form, for some plaintext block M and ciphertext block C. C = Me mod n

M = C d mod n = 1Me2 mod n = Med mod n d

Both sender and receiver must know the value of n. The sender knows the value of e, and only the receiver knows the value of d. Thus, this is a public-key encryption algorithm with a public key of PU = {e, n} and a private key of PR = {d, n}. For this algorithm to be satisfactory for public-key encryption, the following requirements must be met. 1. It is possible to find values of e, d, n such that Med mod n = M for all M < n. 2. It is relatively easy to calculate Me mod n and Cd mod n for all values of M < n. 3. It is infeasible to determine d given e and n. For now, we focus on the first requirement and consider the other questions later. We need to find a relationship of the form Med mod n = M The preceding relationship holds if e and d are multiplicative inverses modulo φ (n), where φ (n) is the Euler totient function. It is shown in Chapter 8 that for p, q prime, φ (pq) = (p - 1)(q - 1). The relationship between e and d can be expressed as ed mod φ(n) = 1 4

(9.1)

The most famous of the fallen contenders is the trapdoor knapsack proposed by Ralph Merkle. We describe this in Appendix J. 5 Apparently, the first workable public-key system for encryption/decryption was put forward by Clifford Cocks of Britain’s CESG in 1973 [COCK73]; Cocks’ method is virtually identical to RSA.

9.2 / THE RSA ALGORITHM

279

This is equivalent to saying ed K 1 mod f1n2 d K e - 1 mod f1n2 That is, e and d are multiplicative inverses mod f(n). Note that, according to the rules of modular arithmetic, this is true only if d (and therefore e) is relatively prime to f(n). Equivalently, gcd(f(n), d) = 1. See Appendix 9A for a proof that Equation (9.1) satisfies the requirement for RSA. We are now ready to state the RSA scheme. The ingredients are the following: p, q, two prime numbers n = pq e, with gcd(f(n), e) = 1; 1 < e < f(n) d K e-1 (mod f(n))

(private, chosen) (public, calculated) (public, chosen) (private, calculated)

The private key consists of {d, n} and the public key consists of {e, n}. Suppose that user A has published its public key and that user B wishes to send the message M to A. Then B calculates C = Me mod n and transmits C. On receipt of this ciphertext, user A decrypts by calculating M = Cd mod n. Figure 9.5 summarizes the RSA algorithm. It corresponds to Figure 9.1a: Alice generates a public/private key pair; Bob encrypts using Alice’s public key; and Alice decrypts using her private key. An example from [SING99] is shown in Figure 9.6. For this example, the keys were generated as follows. Select two prime numbers, p = 17 and q = 11. Calculate n = pq = 17 × 11 = 187. Calculate f(n) = (p - 1)(q - 1) = 16 × 10 = 160. Select e such that e is relatively prime to f(n) = 160 and less than f(n); we choose e = 7. 5. Determine d such that de K 1 (mod 160) and d < 160. The correct value is d = 23, because 23 × 7 = 161 = (1 × 160) + 1; d can be calculated using the extended Euclid’s algorithm (Chapter 4).

1. 2. 3. 4.

The resulting keys are public key PU = {7, 187} and private key PR = {23, 187}. The example shows the use of these keys for a plaintext input of M = 88. For encryption, we need to calculate C = 887 mod 187. Exploiting the properties of modular arithmetic, we can do this as follows. 887 mod 187 = [(884 mod 187) × (882 mod 187) × (881 mod 187)] mod 187 881 mod 187 = 88 882 mod 187 = 7744 mod 187 = 77 884 mod 187 = 59,969,536 mod 187 = 132 887 mod 187 = (88 × 77 × 132) mod 187 = 894,432 mod 187 = 11

280

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA Key Generation Alice p and q both prime, p Z q

Select p, q Calculate n = p * q Calcuate f(n) = (p - 1)(q - 1) Select integer e

gcd (f(n), e) = 1; 1 < e < f(n)

Calculate d

d K e-1 (mod f(n))

Public key

PU = {e, n}

Private key

PR = {d, n}

Encryption by Bob with Alice’s Public Key Plaintext:

M6n

Ciphertext:

C = Me mod n

Decryption by Alice with Alice’s Public Key Ciphertext:

C

Plaintext:

M = Cd mod n

Figure 9.5

The RSA Algorithm Decryption

Encryption Plaintext 88

7

88 mod 187  11

Ciphertext 11

PU  7, 187

Figure 9.6

11

23

mod 187  88

Plaintext 88

PR  23, 187

Example of RSA Algorithm

For decryption, we calculate M = 1123 mod 187: 1123 mod 187 = [(111 mod 187) × (112 mod 187) × (114 mod 187) × (118 mod 187) × (118 mod 187)] mod 187 111 mod 187 = 11 112 mod 187 = 121 114 mod 187 = 14,641 mod 187 = 55 118 mod 187 = 214,358,881 mod 187 = 33 1123 mod 187 = (11 × 121 × 55 × 33 × 33) mod 187 = 79,720,245 mod 187 = 88

9.2 / THE RSA ALGORITHM

281

We now look at an example from [HELL79], which shows the use of RSA to process multiple blocks of data. In this simple example, the plaintext is an alphanumeric string. Each plaintext symbol is assigned a unique code of two decimal digits (e.g., a = 00, A = 26).6 A plaintext block consists of four decimal digits, or two alphanumeric characters. Figure 9.7a illustrates the sequence of events for the encryption of multiple blocks, and Figure 9.7b gives a specific example. The circled numbers indicate the order in which operations are performed.

Sender

Sender

3

3 Plaintext P

How_are_you?

Decimal string

33 14 22 62 00 17 04 62 24 14 20 66

4

4

Blocks of numbers P1, P2,

P1 = 3314 P2 = 2262 P3 = 0017 P4 = 0462 P5 = 2414 P6 = 2066

5

5 Ciphertext C

2

2

C1 = P1e mod n C2 = P2e mod n

Public key e, n

C1 = 331411 mod 11023 = 10260 C2 = 226211 mod 11023 = 9489 C3 = 1711 mod 11023 = 1782 C4 = 46211 mod 11023 = 727 C5 = 241411 mod 11023 = 10032 C6 = 200611 mod 11023 = 2253

e = 11 n = 11023

n = pq

11023 = 73 151

Transmit

Transmit

6 Private key d, n

1

6

7

d = e–1 mod φ(n) φ(n) = (p – 1)(q – 1) n = pq

P1 = C1d mod n P2 = C2d mod n

1

6

5891 = 11–1 mod 10800 10800 = (73 – 1)(151 – 1) 11023 = 73 51

P1 = 102605891 mod 11023 = 3314 P2 = 94895891 mod 11023 = 2262 P3 = 17825891 mod 11023 = 0017 P4 = 7275891 mod 11023 = 0462 P5 = 100325891 mod 11023 = 2414 P6 = 22535891 mod 11023 = 2006

e = 11 p = 73, q = 151

Receiver

(a) General approach Figure 9.7

d = 5891 n = 11023

Recovered decimal text

e, p, q

Random number generator

7

Random number generator

Receiver

(b) Example

RSA Processeing of Multiple Blocks

The complete mapping of alphanumeric characters to decimal digits is at this book’s Website in the document RSAexample.pdf.

282

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

Computational Aspects We now turn to the issue of the complexity of the computation required to use RSA. There are actually two issues to consider: encryption/decryption and key generation. Let us look first at the process of encryption and decryption and then consider key generation. E XPONENTIATION IN M ODULAR A RITHMETIC Both encryption and decryption in RSA involve raising an integer to an integer power, mod n. If the exponentiation is done over the integers and then reduced modulo n, the intermediate values would be gargantuan. Fortunately, as the preceding example shows, we can make use of a property of modular arithmetic: [(a mod n) * (b mod n)] mod n = (a * b) mod n Thus, we can reduce intermediate results modulo n. This makes the calculation practical. Another consideration is the efficiency of exponentiation, because with RSA, we are dealing with potentially large exponents. To see how efficiency might be increased, consider that we wish to compute x16. A straightforward approach requires 15 multiplications: x16 = x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x * x However, we can achieve the same final result with only four multiplications if we repeatedly take the square of each partial result, successively forming (x2, x4, x8, x16). As another example, suppose we wish to calculate x11 mod n for some integers x and n. Observe that x11 = x1+2+8 = (x)(x2)(x8). In this case, we compute x mod n, x2 mod n, x4 mod n, and x8 mod n and then calculate [(x mod n) × (x2 mod n) × (x8 mod n)] mod n. More generally, suppose we wish to find the value ab with a and m positive integers. If we express b as a binary number bkbk-1. . . b0, then we have b = a 2i bi Z 0

Therefore, ab = a

2i a a b bi Z 0

= q a12 2 i

bi Z 0

abmod n = c q a12 2 dmod n = a q ca12 2mod n d bmod n i

bi Z 0

i

bi Z 0

We can therefore develop the algorithm7 for computing ab mod n, shown in Figure 9.8. Table 9.4 shows an example of the execution of this algorithm. Note that the variable c is not needed; it is included for explanatory purposes. The final value of c is the value of the exponent.

7

The algorithm has a long history; this particular pseudocode expression is from [CORM04].

9.2 / THE RSA ALGORITHM

c

0; f

for i

283

1

k downto 0

do

if

c

2  c

f

(f  f) mod n

bi  1 then c f

c  1 (f  a) mod n

return f

Note: The integer b is expressed as a binary number bkbk - 1 . . . b0. Figure 9.8

Algorithm for Computing ab mod n

EFFICIENT OPERATION USING THE PUBLIC KEY To speed up the operation of the RSA algorithm using the public key, a specific choice of e is usually made. The most common choice is 65537 (216 + 1); two other popular choices are 3 and 17. Each of these choices has only two 1 bits, so the number of multiplications required to perform exponentiation is minimized. However, with a very small public key, such as e = 3, RSA becomes vulnerable to a simple attack. Suppose we have three different RSA users who all use the value e = 3 but have unique values of n, namely (n1, n2, n3). If user A sends the same encrypted message M to all three users, then the three ciphertexts are C1 = M3 mod n1, C2 = M3 mod n2, and C3 = M3 mod n3. It is likely that n1, n2, and n3 are pairwise relatively prime. Therefore, one can use the Chinese remainder theorem (CRT) to compute M3 mod (n1n2n3). By the rules of the RSA algorithm, M is less than each of the ni; therefore M3 < n1n2n3. Accordingly, the attacker need only compute the cube root of M3. This attack can be countered by adding a unique pseudorandom bit string as padding to each instance of M to be encrypted. This approach is discussed subsequently. The reader may have noted that the definition of the RSA algorithm (Figure 9.5) requires that during key generation the user selects a value of e that is relatively prime to f(n).Thus, if a value of e is selected first and the primes p and q are generated, it may turn out that gcd(f(n), e) Z 1. In that case, the user must reject the p, q values and generate a new p, q pair. Table 9.4 Result of the Fast Modular Exponentiation Algorithm for ab mod n, where a = 7, b = 560 = 1000110000, and n = 561 i

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

bi

1

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

c

1

2

4

8

17

35

70

140

280

560

f

7

49

157

526

160

241

298

166

67

1

284

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

EFFICIENT OPERATION USING THE PRIVATE KEY We cannot similarly choose a small constant value of d for efficient operation. A small value of d is vulnerable to a bruteforce attack and to other forms of cryptanalysis [WIEN90]. However, there is a way to speed up computation using the CRT. We wish to compute the value M = Cd mod n. Let us define the following intermediate results: Vp = Cd mod p Vq = Cd mod q Following the CRT using Equation (8.8), define the quantities Xp = q * (q - 1 mod p) Xq = p * (p - 1 mod q) The CRT then shows, using Equation (8.9), that M = (Vp Xp + Vq Xq) mod n Furthermore, we can simplify the calculation of Vp and Vq using Fermat’s theorem, which states that ap-1 K 1 (mod p) if p and a are relatively prime. Some thought should convince you that the following are valid. Vp = Cd mod p = Cd mod (p - 1) mod p

Vq = Cd mod q = Cd mod (q - 1) mod q

The quantities d mod (p - 1) and d mod (q - 1) can be precalculated. The end result is that the calculation is approximately four times as fast as evaluating M = Cd mod n directly [BONE02]. K EY G ENERATION Before the application of the public-key cryptosystem, each participant must generate a pair of keys. This involves the following tasks. • Determining two prime numbers, p and q. • Selecting either e or d and calculating the other. First, consider the selection of p and q. Because the value of n = pq will be known to any potential adversary, in order to prevent the discovery of p and q by exhaustive methods, these primes must be chosen from a sufficiently large set (i.e., p and q must be large numbers). On the other hand, the method used for finding large primes must be reasonably efficient. At present, there are no useful techniques that yield arbitrarily large primes, so some other means of tackling the problem is needed. The procedure that is generally used is to pick at random an odd number of the desired order of magnitude and test whether that number is prime. If not, pick successive random numbers until one is found that tests prime. A variety of tests for primality have been developed (e.g., see [KNUT98] for a description of a number of such tests). Almost invariably, the tests are probabilistic. That is, the test will merely determine that a given integer is probably prime. Despite this lack of certainty, these tests can be run in such a way as to make the probability as close to 1.0 as desired. As an example, one of the more efficient and popular algorithms, the Miller-Rabin algorithm, is described in Chapter 8. With this algorithm and most such algorithms, the procedure for testing whether a given integer n is prime is to perform some calculation that involves n and a randomly chosen integer a. If n “fails” the test, then n is not prime. If n “passes” the test, then n may be prime or nonprime. If n passes many

9.2 / THE RSA ALGORITHM

285

such tests with many different randomly chosen values for a, then we can have high confidence that n is, in fact, prime. In summary, the procedure for picking a prime number is as follows. 1. Pick an odd integer n at random (e.g., using a pseudorandom number generator). 2. Pick an integer a < n at random. 3. Perform the probabilistic primality test, such as Miller-Rabin, with a as a parameter. If n fails the test, reject the value n and go to step 1. 4. If n has passed a sufficient number of tests, accept n; otherwise, go to step 2. This is a somewhat tedious procedure. However, remember that this process is performed relatively infrequently: only when a new pair (PU, PR) is needed. It is worth noting how many numbers are likely to be rejected before a prime number is found.A result from number theory, known as the prime number theorem, states that the primes near N are spaced on the average one every (ln N) integers. Thus, on average, one would have to test on the order of ln(N) integers before a prime is found. Actually, because all even integers can be immediately rejected, the correct figure is ln(N)/2. For example, if a prime on the order of magnitude of 2200 were sought, then about ln(2200)/2 = 70 trials would be needed to find a prime. Having determined prime numbers p and q, the process of key generation is completed by selecting a value of e and calculating d or, alternatively, selecting a value of d and calculating e. Assuming the former, then we need to select an e such that gcd(f(n), e) = 1 and then calculate d K e-1 (mod f(n)). Fortunately, there is a single algorithm that will, at the same time, calculate the greatest common divisor of two integers and, if the gcd is 1, determine the inverse of one of the integers modulo the other. The algorithm, referred to as the extended Euclid’s algorithm, is explained in Chapter 4. Thus, the procedure is to generate a series of random numbers, testing each against f(n) until a number relatively prime to f(n) is found. Again, we can ask the question: How many random numbers must we test to find a usable number, that is, a number relatively prime to f(n)? It can be shown easily that the probability that two random numbers are relatively prime is about 0.6; thus, very few tests would be needed to find a suitable integer (see Problem 8.2).

The Security of RSA Four possible approaches to attacking the RSA algorithm are • Brute force: This involves trying all possible private keys. • Mathematical attacks: There are several approaches, all equivalent in effort to factoring the product of two primes. • Timing attacks: These depend on the running time of the decryption algorithm. • Chosen ciphertext attacks: This type of attack exploits properties of the RSA algorithm. The defense against the brute-force approach is the same for RSA as for other cryptosystems, namely, to use a large key space. Thus, the larger the number of bits in d, the better. However, because the calculations involved, both in key generation

286

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

and in encryption/decryption, are complex, the larger the size of the key, the slower the system will run. In this subsection, we provide an overview of mathematical and timing attacks. T HE FACTORING P ROBLEM We can identify three approaches to attacking RSA mathematically. 1. Factor n into its two prime factors. This enables calculation of f(n) = (p - 1) × (q - 1), which in turn enables determination of d K e-1 (mod f(n)). 2. Determine f(n) directly, without first determining p and q. Again, this enables determination of d K e-1 (mod f(n)). 3. Determine d directly, without first determining f(n). Most discussions of the cryptanalysis of RSA have focused on the task of factoring n into its two prime factors. Determining f(n) given n is equivalent to factoring n [RIBE96]. With presently known algorithms, determining d given e and n appears to be at least as time-consuming as the factoring problem [KALI95]. Hence, we can use factoring performance as a benchmark against which to evaluate the security of RSA. For a large n with large prime factors, factoring is a hard problem, but it is not as hard as it used to be. A striking illustration of this is the following. In 1977, the three inventors of RSA dared Scientific American readers to decode a cipher they printed in Martin Gardner’s “Mathematical Games” column [GARD77]. They offered a $100 reward for the return of a plaintext sentence, an event they predicted might not occur for some 40 quadrillion years. In April of 1994, a group working over the Internet claimed the prize after only eight months of work [LEUT94]. This challenge used a public key size (length of n) of 129 decimal digits, or around 428 bits. In the meantime, just as they had done for DES, RSA Laboratories had issued challenges for the RSA cipher with key sizes of 100, 110, 120, and so on, digits. The latest challenge to be met is the RSA-200 challenge with a key length of 200 decimal digits, or about 663 bits. Table 9.5 shows the results to date. The level of effort is measured in MIPS-years: a Table 9.5 Progress in Factorization Number of Decimal Digits

Approximate Number of Bits

Date Achieved

MIPS-Years

100

332

April 1991

7

Quadratic sieve

110

365

April 1992

75

Quadratic sieve

120

398

June 1993

830

Quadratic sieve

129

428

April 1994

5000

Quadratic sieve

130

431

April 1996

1000

Generalized number field sieve

140

465

February 1999

2000

Generalized number field sieve

155

512

August 1999

8000

Generalized number field sieve

160

530

April 2003

—

Lattice sieve

174

576

December 2003

—

Lattice sieve

200

663

May 2005

—

Lattice sieve

Algorithm

9.2 / THE RSA ALGORITHM

287

million-instructions-per-second processor running for one year, which is about 3 × 1013 instructions executed. A 1 GHz Pentium is about a 250-MIPS machine. A striking fact about Table 9.5 concerns the method used. Until the mid-1990s, factoring attacks were made using an approach known as the quadratic sieve. The attack on RSA-130 used a newer algorithm, the generalized number field sieve (GNFS), and was able to factor a larger number than RSA-129 at only 20% of the computing effort. The threat to larger key sizes is twofold: the continuing increase in computing power and the continuing refinement of factoring algorithms. We have seen that the move to a different algorithm resulted in a tremendous speedup.We can expect further refinements in the GNFS, and the use of an even better algorithm is also a possibility. In fact, a related algorithm, the special number field sieve (SNFS), can factor numbers with a specialized form considerably faster than the generalized number field sieve. Figure 9.9 compares the performance of the two algorithms. It is reasonable to expect a breakthrough that would enable a general factoring performance in about the same time as SNFS, or even better [ODLY95]. Thus, we need to be careful in choosing a key size for RSA. For the near future, a key size in the range of 1024 to 2048 bits seems reasonable. In addition to specifying the size of n, a number of other constraints have been suggested by researchers. To avoid values of n that may be factored more easily, the algorithm’s inventors suggest the following constraints on p and q. 1. p and q should differ in length by only a few digits. Thus, for a 1024-bit key (309 decimal digits), both p and q should be on the order of magnitude of 1075 to 10100. 2. Both (p - 1) and (q - 1) should contain a large prime factor. 3. gcd( p - 1, q - 1) should be small. In addition, it has been demonstrated that if e < n and d < n1/4, then d can be easily determined [WIEN90]. TIMING ATTACKS If one needed yet another lesson about how difficult it is to assess the security of a cryptographic algorithm, the appearance of timing attacks provides a stunning one. Paul Kocher, a cryptographic consultant, demonstrated that a snooper can determine a private key by keeping track of how long a computer takes to decipher messages [KOCH96, KALI96b]. Timing attacks are applicable not just to RSA, but to other public-key cryptography systems. This attack is alarming for two reasons: It comes from a completely unexpected direction, and it is a ciphertext-only attack. A timing attack is somewhat analogous to a burglar guessing the combination of a safe by observing how long it takes for someone to turn the dial from number to number. We can explain the attack using the modular exponentiation algorithm of Figure 9.8, but the attack can be adapted to work with any implementation that does not run in fixed time. In this algorithm, modular exponentiation is accomplished bit by bit, with one modular multiplication performed at each iteration and an additional modular multiplication performed for each 1 bit. As Kocher points out in his paper, the attack is simplest to understand in an extreme case. Suppose the target system uses a modular multiplication function that is very fast in almost all cases but in a few cases takes much more time than an entire average modular exponentiation. The attack proceeds bit-by-bit starting with the

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA 1022

1020

1018

1016 General number field sieve MIPS-years needed to factor

288

1014

1012

1010

108 Special number field sieve 106

104

102

100

Figure 9.9

600

800

1000

1200 Bits

1400

1600

1800

2000

MIPS-years Needed to Factor

leftmost bit, bk. Suppose that the first j bits are known (to obtain the entire exponent, start with j = 0 and repeat the attack until the entire exponent is known). For a given ciphertext, the attacker can complete the first j iterations of the for loop.The operation of the subsequent step depends on the unknown exponent bit. If the bit is set, d ; (d × a) mod n will be executed. For a few values of a and d, the modular multiplication will be extremely slow, and the attacker knows which these are.Therefore, if the observed time to execute the decryption algorithm is always slow when this particular iteration is slow with a 1 bit, then this bit is assumed to be 1. If a number of observed execution times for the entire algorithm are fast, then this bit is assumed to be 0. In practice, modular exponentiation implementations do not have such extreme timing variations, in which the execution time of a single iteration can exceed the mean execution time of the entire algorithm. Nevertheless, there is enough variation to make this attack practical. For details, see [KOCH96].

9.2 / THE RSA ALGORITHM

289

Although the timing attack is a serious threat, there are simple countermeasures that can be used, including the following. • Constant exponentiation time: Ensure that all exponentiations take the same amount of time before returning a result. This is a simple fix but does degrade performance. • Random delay: Better performance could be achieved by adding a random delay to the exponentiation algorithm to confuse the timing attack. Kocher points out that if defenders don’t add enough noise, attackers could still succeed by collecting additional measurements to compensate for the random delays. • Blinding: Multiply the ciphertext by a random number before performing exponentiation. This process prevents the attacker from knowing what ciphertext bits are being processed inside the computer and therefore prevents the bit-by-bit analysis essential to the timing attack. RSA Data Security incorporates a blinding feature into some of its products. The private-key operation M = Cd mod n is implemented as follows. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Generate a secret random number r between 0 and n - 1. Compute C ¿ = C(re) mod n, where e is the public exponent. Compute M ¿ = (C ¿ )d mod n with the ordinary RSA implementation. Compute M = M ¿ r-1 mod n. In this equation, r-1 is the multiplicative inverse of r mod n; see Chapter 4 for a discussion of this concept. It can be demonstrated that this is the correct result by observing that red mod n = r mod n. RSA Data Security reports a 2 to 10% performance penalty for blinding.

CHOSEN CIPHERTEXT ATTACK AND OPTIMAL ASYMMETRIC ENCRYPTION PADDING The basic RSA algorithm is vulnerable to a chosen ciphertext attack (CCA). CCA is defined as an attack in which the adversary chooses a number of ciphertexts and is then given the corresponding plaintexts, decrypted with the target’s private key. Thus, the adversary could select a plaintext, encrypt it with the target’s public key, and then be able to get the plaintext back by having it decrypted with the private key. Clearly, this provides the adversary with no new information. Instead, the adversary exploits properties of RSA and selects blocks of data that, when processed using the target’s private key, yield information needed for cryptanalysis. A simple example of a CCA against RSA takes advantage of the following property of RSA: E(PU, M1) × E(PU, M2) = E(PU, [M1 × M2]) We can decrypt C = Me mod n using a CCA as follows. 1. Compute X = (C × 2e) mod n. 2. Submit X as a chosen ciphertext and receive back Y = Xd mod n. But now note that X = (C mod n) * (2e mod n) = (Me mod n) * (2e mod n) = (2M)e mod n

(9.2)

290

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

Therefore, Y = (2M) mod n. From this, we can deduce M. To overcome this simple attack, practical RSA-based cryptosystems randomly pad the plaintext prior to encryption. This randomizes the ciphertext so that Equation (9.2) no longer holds. However, more sophisticated CCAs are possible, and a simple padding with a random value has been shown to be insufficient to provide the desired security. To counter such attacks, RSA Security Inc., a leading RSA vendor and former holder of the RSA patent, recommends modifying the plaintext using a procedure known as optimal asymmetric encryption padding (OAEP). A full discussion of the threats and OAEP are beyond our scope; see [POIN02] for an introduction and [BELL94a] for a thorough analysis. Here, we simply summarize the OAEP procedure. Figure 9.10 depicts OAEP encryption. As a first step, the message M to be encrypted is padded.A set of optional parameters, P, is passed through a hash function, H.8 The output is then padded with zeros to get the desired length in the overall data

P

Seed

M

H(P)

Padding

DB

MGF

MaskedDB

MGF

Maskedseed

EM P  encoding parameters M  message to be encoded H  hash function

DB  data block MGF  mask generating function EM  encoded message

Figure 9.10 Encryption Using Optimal Assymetric Encryption Padding (OAEP) 8

A hash function maps a variable-length data block or message into a fixed-length value called a hash code. Hash functions are discussed in depth in Chapter 11.

9.4 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

291

block (DB). Next, a random seed is generated and passed through another hash function, called the mask generating function (MGF). The resulting hash value is bit-by-bit XORed with DB to produce a maskedDB. The maskedDB is in turn passed through the MGF to form a hash that is XORed with the seed to produce the masked seed.The concatenation of the maskedseed and the maskedDB forms the encoded message EM. Note that the EM includes the padded message, masked by the seed, and the seed, masked by the maskedDB. The EM is then encrypted using RSA.

9.3 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITE The recommended treatments of encryption listed in Chapter 3 cover public-key as well as symmetric encryption. [DIFF88] describes in detail the several attempts to devise secure two-key cryptoalgorithms and the gradual evolution of a variety of protocols based on them. [CORM04] provides a concise but complete and readable summary of all of the algorithms relevant to the verification, computation, and cryptanalysis of RSA. [BONE99] discusses various cryptanalytic attacks on RSA. A more recent discussion is [SHAM03]. BONE99 Boneh, D. “Twenty Years of Attacks on the RSA Cryptosystem.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society, February 1999. CORM04 Cormen, T.; Leiserson, C.; Rivest, R.; and Stein, C. Introduction to Algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004. DIFF88 Diffie, W. “The First Ten Years of Public-Key Cryptography.” Proceedings of the IEEE, May 1988. SHAM03 Shamir, A., and Tromer, E. “On the Cost of Factoring RSA-1024.” CryptoBytes, Summer 2003. http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs

Recommended Web Site: RSA Laboratories: Extensive collection of technical material on RSA and other topics in cryptography.

9.4 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms chosen ciphertext attack (CCA) digital signature key exchange one-way function optimal asymmetric encryption padding (OAEP)

private key public key public-key cryptography public-key cryptosystems public-key encryption

RSA time complexity timing attack trap-door one-way function

292

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

Review Questions 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7

What are the principal elements of a public-key cryptosystem? What are the roles of the public and private key? What are three broad categories of applications of public-key cryptosystems? What requirements must a public key cryptosystems fulfill to be a secure algorithm? What is a one-way function? What is a trap-door one-way function? Describe in general terms an efficient procedure for picking a prime number.

Problems 9.1

Prior to the discovery of any specific public-key schemes, such as RSA, an existence proof was developed whose purpose was to demonstrate that public-key encryption is possible in theory. Consider the functions f1(x1) = z1; f2(x2, y2) = z2; f3(x3, y3) = z3, where all values are integers with 1 ≤ xi, yi, zi ≤ N. Function f1 can be represented by a vector M1 of length N, in which the kth entry is the value of f1(k). Similarly, f2 and f3 can be represented by N × N matrices M2 and M3. The intent is to represent the encryption/decryption process by table lookups for tables with very large values of N. Such tables would be impractically huge but could be constructed in principle. The scheme works as follows: Construct M1 with a random permutation of all integers between 1 and N; that is, each integer appears exactly once in M1. Construct M2 so that each row contains a random permutation of the first N integers. Finally, fill in M3 to satisfy the following condition: f3(f2(f1(k), p), k) = p

for all k, p with 1 … k, p … N

To summarize, 1. M1 takes an input k and produces an output x. 2. M2 takes inputs x and p giving output z. 3. M3 takes inputs z and k and produces p. The three tables, once constructed, are made public. a. It should be clear that it is possible to construct M3 to satisfy the preceding condition. As an example, fill in M3 for the following simple case:

M1 =

9.2

5 4 2 3 1

M2 =

5 4 1 3 2

2 2 3 1 5

3 5 2 4 3

4 1 4 2 4

1 3 5 5 1

M3 =

Convention: The ith element of M1 corresponds to k = i. The ith row of M2 corresponds to x = i; the jth column of M2 corresponds to p = j. The ith row of M3 corresponds to z = i; the jth column of M3 corresponds to k = j. b. Describe the use of this set of tables to perform encryption and decryption between two users. c. Argue that this is a secure scheme. Perform encryption and decryption using the RSA algorithm, as in Figure 9.5, for the following: a. p = 3; q = 11, e = 7; M = 5 b. p = 5; q = 11, e = 3; M = 9 c. p = 7; q = 11, e = 17; M = 8

9.4 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

9.3 9.4

9.5 9.6

9.7

9.8

9.9

9.10

9.11

293

d. p = 11; q = 13, e = 11; M = 7 e. p = 17; q = 31, e = 7; M = 2 Hint: Decryption is not as hard as you think; use some finesse. In a public-key system using RSA, you intercept the ciphertext C = 10 sent to a user whose public key is e = 5, n = 35. What is the plaintext M? In an RSA system, the public key of a given user is e = 31, n = 3599. What is the private key of this user? Hint: First use trial-and-error to determine p and q; then use the extended Euclidean algorithm to find the multiplicative inverse of 31 modulo f(n). In using the RSA algorithm, if a small number of repeated encodings give back the plaintext, what is the likely cause? Suppose we have a set of blocks encoded with the RSA algorithm and we don’t have the private key. Assume n = pq, e is the public key. Suppose also someone tells us they know one of the plaintext blocks has a common factor with n. Does this help us in any way? In the RSA public-key encryption scheme, each user has a public key, e, and a private key, d. Suppose Bob leaks his private key. Rather than generating a new modulus, he decides to generate a new public and a new private key. Is this safe? Suppose Bob uses the RSA cryptosystem with a very large modulus n for which the factorization cannot be found in a reasonable amount of time. Suppose Alice sends a message to Bob by representing each alphabetic character as an integer between 0 and 25 1A : 0, Á , Z : 252 and then encrypting each number separately using RSA with large e and large n. Is this method secure? If not, describe the most efficient attack against this encryption method. Using a spreadsheet (such as Excel) or a calculator, perform the operations described below. Document results of all intermediate modular multiplications. Determine a number of modular multiplications per each major transformation (such as encryption, decryption, primality testing, etc.). a. Test all odd numbers in the range from 233 to 241 for primality using the MillerRabin test with base 2. b. Encrypt the message block M = 2 using RSA with the following parameters: e = 23 and n = 233 × 241. c. Compute a private key (d, p, q) corresponding to the given above public key (e, n). d. Perform the decryption of the obtained ciphertext 1. without using the Chinese Remainder Theorem, and 2. using the Chinese Remainder Theorem. Assume that you generate an authenticated and encrypted message by first applying the RSA transformation determined by your private key, and then enciphering the message using recipient’s public key (note that you do NOT use hash function before the first transformation). Will this scheme work correctly [i.e., give the possibility to reconstruct the original message at the recipient’s side, for all possible relations between the sender’s modulus nS and the recipient’s modulus nR (nS > nR, nS < nR, nS = nR)]? Explain your answer. In case your answer is “no,” how would you correct this scheme? “I want to tell you, Holmes,” Dr. Watson’s voice was enthusiastic, “that your recent activities in network security have increased my interest in cryptography. And just yesterday I found a way to make one-time pad encryption practical.” “Oh, really?” Holmes’ face lost its sleepy look. “Yes, Holmes. The idea is quite simple. For a given one-way function F, I generate a long pseudorandom sequence of elements by applying F to some standard sequence of arguments. The cryptanalyst is assumed to know F and the general nature of the sequence, which may be as simple as S, S + 1, S + 2, . . . , but not secret S. And due to the one-way nature of F, no one is able to extract S given F(S + i) for some i, thus even if he somehow obtains a certain segment of the sequence, he will not be able to determine the rest.”

294

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

9.12 9.13

9.14

9.15

“I am afraid, Watson, that your proposal isn’t without flaws and at least it needs some additional conditions to be satisfied by F. Let’s consider, for instance, the RSA encryption function, that is F(M) = MK mod N, K is secret. This function is believed to be one-way, but I wouldn’t recommend its use, for example, on the sequence M = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, . . .” “But why, Holmes?” Dr. Watson apparently didn’t understand. “Why do you think that the resulting sequence 2K mod N, 3K mod N, 4K mod N, . . . is not appropriate for one-time pad encryption if K is kept secret?” “Because it is—at least partially—predictable, dear Watson, even if K is kept secret. You have said that the cryptanalyst is assumed to know F and the general nature of the sequence. Now let’s assume that he will obtain somehow a short segment of the output sequence. In crypto circles this assumption is generally considered to be a viable one. And for this output sequence, knowledge of just the first two elements will allow him to predict quite a lot of the next elements of the sequence, even if not all of them, thus this sequence can’t be considered to be cryptographically strong. And with the knowledge of a longer segment he could predict even more of the next elements of the sequence. Look, knowing the general nature of the sequence and its first two elements 2K mod N and 3K mod N, you can easily compute its following elements.” Show how this can be done. Show how RSA can be represented by matrices M1, M2, and M3 of Problem 9.1. Consider the following scheme: 1. Pick an odd number, E. 2. Pick two prime numbers, P and Q, where (P - 1)(Q - 1) -1 is evenly divisible by E. 3. Multiply P and Q to get N. (P - 1)(Q - 1)(E - 1) + 1 4. Calculate D = E Is this scheme equivalent to RSA? Show why or why not. Consider the following scheme by which B encrypts a message for A. 1. A chooses two large primes P and Q that are also relatively prime to (P - 1) and (Q - 1). 2. A publishes N = PQ as its public key. 3. A calculates P ¿ and Q ¿ such that PP ¿ K 1 (mod Q - 1) and QQ ¿ K 1 (mod P - 1). 4. B encrypts message M as C = MN mod N. 5. A finds M by solving M K CP¿ (mod Q) and M K CQ ¿ (mod P). a. Explain how this scheme works. b. How does it differ from RSA? c. Is there any particular advantage to RSA compared to this scheme? d. Show how this scheme can be represented by matrices M1, M2, and M3 of Problem 9.1. “This is a very interesting case, Watson,” Holmes said. “The young man loves a girl, and she loves him too. However, her father is a strange fellow who insists that his would-be son-in-law must design a simple and secure protocol for an appropriate public-key cryptosystem he could use in his company’s computer network. The young man came up with the following protocol for communication between two parties. For example, user A wishing to send message M to user B: (messages exchanged are in the format sender’s name, text, receiver’s name)” 1. A sends B the following block: (A, E(PUb, [M, A]), B). 2. B acknowledges receipt by sending to A the following block: (B, E(PUa, [M, B]), A). “You can see that the protocol is really simple. But the girl’s father claims that the young man has not satisfied his call for a simple protocol, because the proposal contains a certain redundancy and can be further simplified to the following:” 1. A sends B the block: (A, E(PUb, M), B). 2. B acknowledges receipt by sending to A the block: (B, E(PUa, M), A).

9.4 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

9.16 9.17

9.18

9.19 9.20

9.21 9.22

“On the basis of that, the girl’s father refuses to allow his daughter to marry the young man, thus making them both unhappy. The young man was just here to ask me for help.” “Hmm, I don’t see how you can help him.” Watson was visibly unhappy with the idea that the sympathetic young man has to lose his love. “Well, I think I could help. You know, Watson, redundancy is sometimes good to ensure the security of protocol. Thus, the simplification the girl’s father has proposed could make the new protocol vulnerable to an attack the original protocol was able to resist,” mused Holmes. “Yes, it is so, Watson. Look, all an adversary needs is to be one of the users of the network and to be able to intercept messages exchanged between A and B. Being a user of the network, he has his own public encryption key and is able to send his own messages to A or to B and to receive theirs. With the help of the simplified protocol, he could then obtain message M user A has previously sent to B using the following procedure:” Complete the description. Use the fast exponentiation algorithm of Figure 9.8 to determine 5596 mod 1234. Show the steps involved in the computation. Here is another realization of the fast exponentiation algorithm. Demonstrate that it is equivalent to the one in Figure 9.8. 1. f ; 1; T ; a; E ; b 2. if odd(e) then f ; f * T 3. E ; [ E/2 ] 4. T ; T * T 5. if E > 0 then goto 2 6. output f The problem illustrates a simple application of the chosen ciphertext attack. Bob intercepts a ciphertext C intended for Alice and encrypted with Alice’s public key e. Bob wants to obtain the original message M = Cd mod n. Bob chooses a random value r less than n and computes Z = re mod n X = ZC mod n t = r-1 mod n Next, Bob gets Alice to authenticate (sign) X with her private key (as in Figure 9.3), thereby decrypting X. Alice returns Y = Xd mod n. Show how Bob can use the information now available to him to determine M. Show the OAEP decoding operation used for decryption that corresponds to the encoding operation of Figure 9.10. Improve on algorithm P1 in Appendix 9B. a. Develop an algorithm that requires 2n multiplications and n + 1 additions. Hint: xi+1 = xi × x. b. Develop an algorithm that requires only n + 1 multiplications and n + 1 additions. Hint: P(x) = a0 + x × q(x), where q(x) is a polynomial of degree (n - 1). The remaining problems concern the knapsack public-key algorithm described in Appendix J. What items are in the knapsack in Figure F.1? Perform encryption and decryption using the knapsack algorithm for the following: a. a ¿ = (1, 3, 5, 10); w = 7; m = 20; x = 1101 b. a ¿ = (1, 3, 5, 11, 23, 46, 136, 263); w = 203; m = 491; x = 11101000 c. a ¿ = (2, 3, 6, 12, 25); w = 46; m = 53; x = 11101 d. a ¿ = (15, 92, 108, 279, 563, 1172, 2243, 4468); w = 2393; m = 9291; x = 10110001 n

9.23

295

Why is it a requirement that m 7 a a¿ i? 1=1

296

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

APPENDIX 9A

PROOF OF THE RSA ALGORITHM

The basic elements of the RSA algorithm can be summarized as follows. Given two prime numbers p and q, with n = pq and a message block M < n, two integers e and d are chosen such that Med mod n = M We state in Section 9.2 that the preceding relationship holds if e and d are multiplicative inverses modulo f(n), where f(n) is the Euler totient function. It is shown in Chapter 8 that for p, q prime, f(pq) = (p - 1)(q - 1). The relationship between e and d can be expressed as ed mod f(n) = 1 Another way to state this is that there is an integer k such that ed = kf(n) + 1. Thus, we must show that Mkf(n) + 1 mod n = Mk(p - 1)(q - 1) + 1 mod n = M

(9.3)

Basic Results Before proving Equation (9.3), we summarize some basic results. In Chapter 4, we showed that a property of modular arithmetic is [(a mod n) × (b mod n)] mod n = (a × b) mod n From this, it should be easy to see that if we have x mod n = 1, then x2 mod n = 1 and, for any integer y, we have xy mod n = 1. Similarly, if we have x mod n = 0 for any integer y, we have xy mod n = 0. Another property of modular arithmetic is [(a mod n) - (b mod n)] mod n = (a - b) mod n The other result we need is Euler’s theorem, which was developed in Chapter 8. If integers a and n are relatively prime, then af(n) mod n = 1.

Proof First we show that Mk(p - 1)(q - 1)+1 mod p = M mod p. There are two cases to consider. Case 1: M and p are not relatively prime; that is, p divides M. In this case, M mod p = 0 and therefore Mk(p - 1)(q - 1)+1 mod p = 0. Thus, Mk(p - 1)(q - 1)+1 mod p = M mod p. Case 2: If M and p are relatively prime, by Euler’s theorem, Mf(p) mod p = 1. We proceed as Mk(p - 1)(q - 1) + 1 mod p = = = = =

[(M)Mk(p - 1)(q - 1)1] mod p [(M)(M(p - 1))k(q - 1)] mod p [(M)(Mf(p))k(q - 1)] mod p (M mod p) * [(Mf(p)) mod p]k(q - 1) (M mod p) * (1)k(q - 1) (by Euler’s theorem)

= M mod p

APPENDIX 9B / THE COMPLEXITY OF ALGORITHMS

297

We now observe that [Mk(p - 1)(q - 1) + 1 - M] mod p = [Mk(p - 1)(q - 1) + 1 mod p] - [M mod p] = 0 Thus, p divides [Mk(p-1)(q-1)+1 - M]. By the same reasoning, we can show that q divides [Mk(p-1)(q-1)+1 - M]. Because p and q are distinct primes, there must exist an integer r that satisfies [Mk(p-1)(q-1)+1 - M] = (pq)r = nr Therefore, n divides [Mk(p-1)(q-1)+1 - M], and so Mkf(n)+1 mod n = Mk(p-1)(q-1)+1 mod n = M.

APPENDIX 9B

THE COMPLEXITY OF ALGORITHMS

The central issue in assessing the resistance of an encryption algorithm to cryptanalysis is the amount of time that a given type of attack will take. Typically, one cannot be sure that one has found the most efficient attack algorithm. The most that one can say is that, for a particular algorithm, the level of effort for an attack is of a particular order of magnitude. One can then compare that order of magnitude to the speed of current or predicted processors to determine the level of security of a particular algorithm. A common measure of the efficiency of an algorithm is its time complexity. We define the time complexity of an algorithm to be f(n) if, for all n and all inputs of length n, the execution of the algorithm takes at most f(n) steps. Thus, for a given size of input and a given processor speed, the time complexity is an upper bound on the execution time. There are several ambiguities here. First, the definition of a step is not precise. A step could be a single operation of a Turing machine, a single processor machine instruction, a single high-level language machine instruction, and so on. However, these various definitions of step should all be related by simple multiplicative constants. For very large values of n, these constants are not important. What is important is how fast the relative execution time is growing. For example, if we are concerned about whether to use 50-digit (n = 1050) or 100-digit (n = 10100) keys for RSA, it is not necessary (or really possible) to know exactly how long it would take to break each size of key. Rather, we are interested in ballpark figures for level of effort and in knowing how much extra relative effort is required for the larger key size. A second issue is that, generally speaking, we cannot pin down an exact formula for f(n). We can only approximate it. But again, we are primarily interested in the rate of change of f(n) as n becomes very large. There is a standard mathematical notation, known as the “big-O” notation, for characterizing the time complexity of algorithms that is useful in this context. The definition is as follows: f(n) = O(g(n)) if and only if there exist two numbers a and M such that

ƒ f(n) ƒ … a * ƒ g(n) ƒ , n Ú M

(9.4)

298

CHAPTER 9 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

An example helps clarify the use of this notation. Suppose we wish to evaluate a general polynomial of the form P(x) = anxn + an - 1xn - 1 + Á + a1x + a0 The following simple-minded algorithm is from [POHL81]. algorithm P1; n, i, j: integer; x, polyval: real; a, S: array [0..100] of real; begin read(x, n); for i := 0 upto n do begin S[i] := 1; read(a[i]); for j := 1 upto i do S[i] := x × S[i]; S[i] := a[i] × S[i] end; polyval := 0; for i := 0 upto n do polyval := polyval + S[i]; write (’value at’, x, ’is’, polyval) end. In this algorithm, each subexpression is evaluated separately. Each S[i] requires (i + 1) multiplications: i multiplications to compute S[i] and one to multiply by a[i]. Computing all n terms requires n

a (i + 1) =

i=0

(n + 2)(n + 1) 2

multiplications. There are also (n + 1) additions, which we can ignore relative to the much larger number of multiplications. Thus, the time complexity of this algorithm is f(n) = (n + 2)(n + 1)/2.We now show that f(n) = O(n2). From the definition of Equation (9.4), we want to show that for a = 1 and M = 4 the relationship holds for g(n) = n2. We do this by induction on n. The relationship holds for n = 4 because (4 + 2) (4 + 1)/2 = 15 < 42 = 16. Now assume that it holds for all values of n up to k [i.e., (k + 2)(k + 1)/2 < k2]. Then, with n = k + 1, (n + 2)(n + 1) (k + 3)(k + 2) = 2 2 (k + 2)(k + 1) + k + 2 2 … k2 + k + 2 =

… k2 + 2k + 1 = (k + 1)2 = n2 Therefore, the result is true for n = k + 1.

APPENDIX 9B / THE COMPLEXITY OF ALGORITHMS

299

In general, the big-O notation makes use of the term that grows the fastest. For example, 1. O[ax7 + 3x3 + sin(x)] = O(ax7) = O(x7) 2. O(en + an10) = O(en) 3. O(n! + n50) = O(n!) There is much more to the big-O notation, with fascinating ramifications. For the interested reader, two of the best accounts are in [GRAH94] and [KNUT97]. An algorithm with an input of size n is said to be • Linear: If the running time is O(n) • Polynomial: If the running time is O(nt) for some constant t • Exponential: If the running time is O(th(n)) for some constant t and polynomial h(n) Generally, a problem that can be solved in polynomial time is considered feasible, whereas anything worse than polynomial time, especially exponential time, is considered infeasible. But you must be careful with these terms. First, if the size of the input is small enough, even very complex algorithms become feasible. Suppose, for example, that you have a system that can execute 1012 operations per unit time. Table 9.6 shows the size of input that can be handled in one time unit for algorithms of various complexities. For algorithms of exponential or factorial time, only very small inputs can be accommodated. The second thing to be careful about is the way in which the input is characterized. For example, the complexity of cryptanalysis of an encryption algorithm can be characterized equally well in terms of the number of possible keys or the length of the key. For the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), for example, the number of possible keys is 2128, and the length of the key is 128 bits. If we consider a single encryption to be a “step” and the number of possible keys to be N = 2n, then the time complexity of the algorithm is linear in terms of the number of keys [O(N)] but exponential in terms of the length of the key [O(2n)].

Table 9.6 Level of Effort for Various Levels of Complexity Complexity

Size

Operations

log2 n

210 = 103 * 10

N

1012

1012

n

2

10

6

1012

n6

102

1012

2

n

39

1012

n!

15

1012

12

11

1012

CHAPTER

OTHER PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS 10.1 Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange The Algorithm Key Exchange Protocols Man-in-the-Middle Attack 10.2 Elgamal Cryptographic System 10.3 Elliptic Curve Arithmetic Abelian Groups Elliptic Curves over Real Numbers Elliptic Curves over Zp Elliptic Curves over GF(2m) 10.4 Elliptic Curve Cryptography Analog of Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange Elliptic Curve Encryption/Decryption Security of Elliptic Curve Cryptography 10.5 Pseudorandom Number Generation Based on an Asymmetric Cipher PRNG Based on RSA PRNG Based on Elliptic Curve Cryptography 10.6 Recommended Reading and Web Site 10.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

300

10.1 / DIFFIE-HELLMAN KEY EXCHANGE

301

Amongst the tribes of Central Australia every man, woman, and child has a secret or sacred name which is bestowed by the older men upon him or her soon after birth, and which is known to none but the fully initiated members of the group. This secret name is never mentioned except upon the most solemn occasions; to utter it in the hearing of men of another group would be a most serious breach of tribal custom. When mentioned at all, the name is spoken only in a whisper, and not until the most elaborate precautions have been taken that it shall be heard by no one but members of the group. The native thinks that a stranger knowing his secret name would have special power to work him ill by means of magic. —The Golden Bough, Sir James George Frazer

KEY POINTS ◆

◆

◆

A simple public-key algorithm is Diffie-Hellman key exchange. This protocol enables two users to establish a secret key using a public-key scheme based on discrete logarithms. The protocol is secure only if the authenticity of the two participants can be established. Elliptic curve arithmetic can be used to develop a variety of elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) schemes, including key exchange, encryption, and digital signature. For purposes of ECC, elliptic curve arithmetic involves the use of an elliptic curve equation defined over a finite field. The coefficients and variables in the equation are elements of a finite field. Schemes using Zp and GF(2m) have been developed.

This chapter begins with a description of one of the earliest and simplest PKCS: DiffieHellman key exchange. The chapter then looks at another important scheme, the ElGamal PKCS. Next, we look at the increasingly important PKCS known as elliptic curve cryptography. Finally, the use of public-key algorithms for pseudorandom number generation is examined.

10.1 DIFFIE-HELLMAN KEY EXCHANGE The first published public-key algorithm appeared in the seminal paper by Diffie and Hellman that defined public-key cryptography [DIFF76b] and is generally referred to as Diffie-Hellman key exchange.1 A number of commercial products employ this key exchange technique. 1

Williamson of Britain’s CESG published the identical scheme a few months earlier in a classified document [WILL76] and claims to have discovered it several years prior to that; see [ELLI99] for a discussion.

302

CHAPTER 10 / OTHER PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

The purpose of the algorithm is to enable two users to securely exchange a key that can then be used for subsequent encryption of messages. The algorithm itself is limited to the exchange of secret values. The Diffie-Hellman algorithm depends for its effectiveness on the difficulty of computing discrete logarithms. Briefly, we can define the discrete logarithm in the following way. Recall from Chapter 8 that a primitive root of a prime number p as one whose powers modulo p generate all the integers from 1 to p - 1. That is, if a is a primitive root of the prime number p, then the numbers a mod p, a2 mod p, Á , ap - 1 mod p are distinct and consist of the integers from 1 through p - 1 in some permutation. For any integer b and a primitive root a of prime number p, we can find a unique exponent i such that b K ai (mod p)

where 0 … i … (p - 1)

The exponent i is referred to as the discrete logarithm of b for the base a, mod p. We express this value as dloga,p(b). See Chapter 8 for an extended discussion of discrete logarithms.

The Algorithm Figure 10.1 summarizes the Diffie-Hellman key exchange algorithm. For this scheme, there are two publicly known numbers: a prime number q and an integer α that is a primitive root of q. Suppose the users A and B wish to exchange a key. User A selects a random integer XA 6 q and computes YA = aXA mod q. Similarly, user B independently selects a random integer XB 6 q and computes YB = aXB mod q. Each side keeps the X value private and makes the Y value available publicly to the other side. User A computes the key as K = (YB)XA mod q and user B computes the key as K = (YA)XB mod q . These two calculations produce identical results: K = = = = = = =

(YB)XA mod q (aXB mod q)XA mod q (aXB)XA mod q aXBXA mod q (aXA)XB mod q (aXA mod q)XB mod q (YA)XB mod q

by the rules of modular arithmetic

The result is that the two sides have exchanged a secret value. Furthermore, because XA and XB are private, an adversary only has the following ingredients to work with: q, a, YA, and YB. Thus, the adversary is forced to take a discrete logarithm to determine the key. For example, to determine the private key of user B, an adversary must compute XB = dloga,q(YB) The adversary can then calculate the key K in the same manner as user B calculates it.

10.1 / DIFFIE-HELLMAN KEY EXCHANGE

303

Global Public Elements q

prime number

α

α < q and α a primitive root of q

User A Key Generation XA < q

Select private XA Calculate public YA

YA = α XA mod q

User B Key Generation Select private XB

XB < q

Calculate public YB

YB = α XB mod q

Calculation of Secret Key by User A XA

K = (YB )

mod q

Calculation of Secret Key by User B K = (YA )XB mod q Figure 10.1 The Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange Algorithm

The security of the Diffie-Hellman key exchange lies in the fact that, while it is relatively easy to calculate exponentials modulo a prime, it is very difficult to calculate discrete logarithms. For large primes, the latter task is considered infeasible. Here is an example. Key exchange is based on the use of the prime number q = 353 and a primitive root of 353, in this case a = 3. A and B select secret keys XA = 97 and XB = 233, respectively. Each computes its public key: A computes YA = 397 mod 353 = 40 . B computes YB = 3233 mod 353 = 248 . After they exchange public keys, each can compute the common secret key: A computes K = (YB)XA mod 353 = 24897 mod 353 = 160. B computes K = (YA)XB mod 353 = 40233 mod 353 = 160. We assume an attacker would have available the following information: q = 353; a = 3; YA = 40; YB = 248

304

CHAPTER 10 / OTHER PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

In this simple example, it would be possible by brute force to determine the secret key 160. In particular, an attacker E can determine the common key by discovering a solution to the equation 3a mod 353 = 40 or the equation 3b mod 353 = 248. The brute-force approach is to calculate powers of 3 modulo 353, stopping when the result equals either 40 or 248. The desired answer is reached with the exponent value of 97, which provides 397 mod 353 = 40. With larger numbers, the problem becomes impractical.

Key Exchange Protocols Figure 10.2 shows a simple protocol that makes use of the Diffie-Hellman calculation. Suppose that user A wishes to set up a connection with user B and use a secret key to encrypt messages on that connection. User A can generate a one-time private key XA, calculate YA, and send that to user B. User B responds by generating a private value XB, calculating YB, and sending YB to user A. Both users can now calculate the key. The necessary public values q and a would need to be known ahead of time. Alternatively, user A could pick values for q and a and include those in the first message. As an example of another use of the Diffie-Hellman algorithm, suppose that a group of users (e.g., all users on a LAN) each generate a long-lasting private value Xi (for user i) and calculate a public value Yi. These public values, together with global public values for q and α, are stored in some central directory. At any time, user j can access user i’s public value, calculate a secret key, and use that to send an encrypted message to user A. If the central directory is trusted, then this form of communication provides both confidentiality and a degree of authentication. Because only i and j can determine the key, no other user can read the message (confidentiality). Recipient i knows that only user j could have created a message using this key (authentication). However, the technique does not protect against replay attacks.

User A Generate random XA  q; Calculate YA  a XA mod q

User B

YA

YB

Calculate K  (YB)XA mod q

Figure 10.2 Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange

Generate random XB  q; Calculate YB  a XB mod q; Calculate K  (YA)XB mod q

10.2 / ELGAMAL CRYPTOGRAPHIC SYSTEM

305

Man-in-the-Middle Attack The protocol depicted in Figure 10.2 is insecure against a man-in-the-middle attack. Suppose Alice and Bob wish to exchange keys, and Darth is the adversary. The attack proceeds as follows. 1. Darth prepares for the attack by generating two random private keys XD1 and XD2 and then computing the corresponding public keys YD1 and YD2. 2. Alice transmits YA to Bob. 3. Darth intercepts YA and transmits YD1 to Bob. Darth also calculates K2 = (YA)XD2 mod q . 4. Bob receives YD1 and calculates K1 = (YD1)XB mod q . 5. Bob transmits YB to Alice. 6. Darth intercepts YB and transmits YD2 to Alice. Darth calculates K1 = (YB)XD1 mod q . 7. Alice receives YD2 and calculates K2 = (YD2)XA mod q . At this point, Bob and Alice think that they share a secret key, but instead Bob and Darth share secret key K1 and Alice and Darth share secret key K2. All future communication between Bob and Alice is compromised in the following way. 1. Alice sends an encrypted message M: E(K2, M) . 2. Darth intercepts the encrypted message and decrypts it to recover M. 3. Darth sends Bob E(K1, M) or E(K1, M¿) , where M¿ is any message. In the first case, Darth simply wants to eavesdrop on the communication without altering it. In the second case, Darth wants to modify the message going to Bob. The key exchange protocol is vulnerable to such an attack because it does not authenticate the participants. This vulnerability can be overcome with the use of digital signatures and public-key certificates; these topics are explored in Chapters 13 and 14.

10.2 ELGAMAL CRYPTOGRAPHIC SYSTEM In 1984, T. Elgamal announced a public-key scheme based on discrete logarithms, closely related to the Diffie-Hellman technique [ELGA84, ELGA85]. The ElGamal2 cryptosystem is used in some form in a number of standards including the digital signature standard (DSS), which is covered in Chapter 13, and the S/MIME e-mail standard (Chapter 18).

2

For no apparent reason, everyone calls this the ElGamal system although Mr. Elgamal’s last name does not have a capital letter G.

306

CHAPTER 10 / OTHER PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

As with Diffie-Hellman, the global elements of ElGamal are a prime number q and a, which is a primitive root of q. User A generates a private/public key pair as follows: 1. Generate a random integer XA, such that 1 6 XA 6 q - 1. 2. Compute YA = aXA mod q . 3. A’s private key is XA; A’s pubic key is {q, a, YA} . Any user B that has access to A’s public key can encrypt a message as follows: 1. Represent the message as an integer M in the range 0 … M … q - 1 . Longer messages are sent as a sequence of blocks, with each block being an integer less than q. 2. Choose a random integer k such that 1 … k … q - 1. 3. Compute a one-time key K = (YA)k mod q . 4. Encrypt M as the pair of integers (C1, C2) where C1 = ak mod q; C2 = KM mod q User A recovers the plaintext as follows: 1. Recover the key by computing K = (C1)XA mod q . 2. Compute M = (C2K-1) mod q . These steps are summarized in Figure 10.3. It corresponds to Figure 9.1a: Alice generates a public/private key pair; Bob encrypts using Alice’s public key; and Alice decrypts using her private key. Let us demonstrate why the ElGamal scheme works. First, we show how K is recovered by the decryption process: K K K K

= = = =

(YA)k mod q (aXA mod q)k mod q akXA mod q (C1)XA mod q

K is defined during the encryption process substitute using YA = aXA mod q by the rules of modular arithmetic substitute using C1 = ak mod q

Next, using K, we recover the plaintext as C2 = KM mod q (C2K-1) mod q = KMK-1 mod q = M mod q = M We can restate the ElGamal process as follows, using Figure 10.3. 1. Bob generates a random integer k. 2. Bob generates a one-time key K using Alice’s public-key components YA, q, and k. 3. Bob encrypts k using the public-key component α, yielding C1. C1 provides sufficient information for Alice to recover K. 4. Bob encrypts the plaintext message M using K. 5. Alice recovers K from C1 using her private key. 6. Alice uses K-1 to recover the plaintext message from C2.

10.2 / ELGAMAL CRYPTOGRAPHIC SYSTEM

307

Global Public Elements q

prime number

α

α < q and α a primitive root of q

Key Generation by Alice Select private XA

XA < q – 1

Calculate YA

YA = α XA mod q

Public key

PU = {q, α , YA }

Private key

XA

Encryption by Bob with Alice’s Public Key Plaintext:

Mn2]

7 1 - e - Ak * (k - 1)B>2n

Now let us pose the question: What value of k is required such that P(n, k) 7 0.5? To satisfy the requirement, we have 1>2 = 1 - e - (k * (k - 1))>2n 2 = e(k * (k - 1))>2n In 2 =

k * (k - 1) 2n

For large k, we can replace k * (k - 1) by k2, and we get k = 12(ln2)n = 1.181n L 1n

(11.6)

As a reality check, for n = 365, we get k = 1.18 * 1365 = 22.54, which is very close to the correct answer of 23. We can now state the basis of the birthday attack in the following terms. Suppose we have a function H, with 2m possible outputs (i.e., an m-bit output). If H is applied tok random inputs, what must be the value of k so that there is the probability of at least one duplicate [i.e., H(x) = H(y) for some inputs x , y )]? Using the approximation in Equation (11.6), k = 22m = 2m>2

(11.7)

APPENDIX 11A / MATHEMATICAL BASIS OF THE BIRTHDAY ATTACK

361

Overlap between Two Sets There is a problem related to the general case of duplications that is also of relevance for our discussions. The problem is this: Given an integer random variable with uniform distribution between 1 and n and two sets of k instances (k … n) of the random variable, what is the probability, R(n, k), that the two sets are not disjoint; that is, what is the probability that there is at least one value found in both sets? Let us call the two sets X and Y, with elements {x1, x2, . . . , xk} and {y1, y2, . . . , yk}, respectively. Given the value of x1, the probability that y1 = x1 is just 1/n, and therefore the probability that y1 does not match x1 is [1 - (1/n)]. If we generate the k random values in Y, the probability that none of these values is equal to x1 is [1 - (1/n)]k. Thus, the probability that there is at least one match to x1 is 1 - [1 - (1/n)]k. To proceed, let us make the assumption that all the elements of X are distinct. If n is large and if k is also large (e.g., on the order of 1n), then this is a good approximation. In fact, there may be a few duplications, but most of the values will be distinct. With that assumption, we can make the following derivation: Pr[no match in Y to x1] = a1 -

1 k b n 2

1 k k 1 k Pr[no match in Y to X] = ¢ a1 - b ≤ = a1 - b n n

2

1 k R(n, k) = Pr[at least one match in Y to X] = 1 - a1 - b n Using the inequality of Equation (11.4),

R(n, k) 7 1 - A e-1>n B k

2

R(n, k) 7 1 - A e-k >n B 2

Let us pose the question: What value of k is required such that R(n, k) 7 0.5? To satisfy the requirement, we have 1>2 = 1 - (e - k >n) 2

2 = ek >n 2

k2 n k = 1(ln(2))n = 0.831n L 1n

ln(2) =

(11.8)

We can state this in terms related to birthday attacks as follows. Suppose we have a function H with 2m possible outputs (i.e., an m-bit output). Apply H to k random inputs to produce the set X and again to k additional random inputs to produce the set Y.What must be the value of k so that there is the probability of at least 0.5 that there is a match between the two sets (i.e., H(x) = H(y) for some inputs x H X, y H Y)? Using the approximation in Equation (11.8): k = 22m = 2m>2

CHAPTER

MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES 12.1

Message Authentication Requirements

12.2

Message Authentication Functions Message Encryption Message Authentication Code

12.3

Requirements for Message Authentication Codes

12.4

Security of MACs Brute-Force Attacks Cryptanalysis

12.5

MACs Based on Hash Functions: HMAC HMAC Design Objectives HMAC Algorithm Security of HMAC

12.6

MACs Based on Block Ciphers: DAA and CMAC Data Authentication Algorithm Cipher-Based Message Authentication Code (CMAC)

12.7

Authenticated Encryption: CCM and GCM Counter with Cipher Block Chaining-Message Authentication Code Galois/Counter Mode

12.8

Pseudorandom Number Generation Using Hash Functions and Macs PRNG Based on Hash function PRNG Based on MAC function

12.9

Recommended Reading and Web Site

12.10 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

362

12.1 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION REQUIREMENTS

363

At cats’ green on the Sunday he took the message from the inside of the pillar and added Peter Moran’s name to the two names already printed there in the “Brontosaur” code. The message now read: “Leviathan to Dragon: Martin Hillman, Trevor Allan, Peter Moran: observe and tail.” What was the good of it John hardly knew. He felt better, he felt that at last he had made an attack on Peter Moran instead of waiting passively and effecting no retaliation. Besides, what was the use of being in possession of the key to the codes if he never took advantage of it? —Talking to Strange Men, Ruth Rendell

KEY POINTS ◆

◆ ◆

◆ ◆

Message authentication is a mechanism or service used to verify the integrity of a message. Message authentication assures that data received are exactly as sent by (i.e., contain no modification, insertion, deletion, or replay) and that the purported identity of the sender is valid. Symmetric encryption provides authentication among those who share the secret key. A message authentication code (MAC) is an algorithm that requires the use of a secret key. A MAC takes a variable-length message and a secret key as input and produces an authentication code. A recipient in possession of the secret key can generate an authentication code to verify the integrity of the message. One means of forming a MAC is to combine a cryptographic hash function in some fashion with a secret key. Another approach to constructing a MAC is to use a symmetric block cipher in such a way that it produces a fixed-length output for a variablelength input.

One of the most fascinating and complex areas of cryptography is that of message authentication and the related area of digital signatures. It would be impossible, in anything less than book length, to exhaust all the cryptographic functions and protocols that have been proposed or implemented for message authentication and digital signatures. Instead, the purpose of this chapter and the next is to provide a broad overview of the subject and to develop a systematic means of describing the various approaches. This chapter begins with an introduction to the requirements for authentication and digital signature and the types of attacks to be countered. Then the basic approaches are surveyed. The remainder of the chapter deals with the fundamental approach to message authentication known as the message authentication code (MAC). Following an overview of this topic, the chapter looks at security considerations for MACs. This is followed by a discussion of specific MACs in two categories: those built from cryptographic hash functions and those built using a block cipher

364

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

mode of operation. Next, we look at a relatively recent approach known as authenticated encryption. Finally, we look at the use of cryptographic hash functions and MACs for pseudorandom number generation.

12.1 MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION REQUIREMENTS In the context of communications across a network, the following attacks can be identified. 1. Disclosure: Release of message contents to any person or process not possessing the appropriate cryptographic key. 2. Traffic analysis: Discovery of the pattern of traffic between parties. In a connection-oriented application, the frequency and duration of connections could be determined. In either a connection-oriented or connectionless environment, the number and length of messages between parties could be determined. 3. Masquerade: Insertion of messages into the network from a fraudulent source. This includes the creation of messages by an opponent that are purported to come from an authorized entity. Also included are fraudulent acknowledgments of message receipt or nonreceipt by someone other than the message recipient. 4. Content modification: Changes to the contents of a message, including insertion, deletion, transposition, and modification. 5. Sequence modification: Any modification to a sequence of messages between parties, including insertion, deletion, and reordering. 6. Timing modification: Delay or replay of messages. In a connection-oriented application, an entire session or sequence of messages could be a replay of some previous valid session, or individual messages in the sequence could be delayed or replayed. In a connectionless application, an individual message (e.g., datagram) could be delayed or replayed. 7. Source repudiation: Denial of transmission of message by source. 8. Destination repudiation: Denial of receipt of message by destination. Measures to deal with the first two attacks are in the realm of message confidentiality and are dealt with in Part One. Measures to deal with items (3) through (6) in the foregoing list are generally regarded as message authentication. Mechanisms for dealing specifically with item (7) come under the heading of digital signatures. Generally, a digital signature technique will also counter some or all of the attacks listed under items (3) through (6). Dealing with item (8) may require a combination of the use of digital signatures and a protocol designed to counter this attack. In summary, message authentication is a procedure to verify that received messages come from the alleged source and have not been altered. Message authentication may also verify sequencing and timeliness. A digital signature is an authentication technique that also includes measures to counter repudiation by the source.

12.2 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION FUNCTIONS

365

12.2 MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION FUNCTIONS Any message authentication or digital signature mechanism has two levels of functionality. At the lower level, there must be some sort of function that produces an authenticator: a value to be used to authenticate a message. This lower-level function is then used as a primitive in a higher-level authentication protocol that enables a receiver to verify the authenticity of a message. This section is concerned with the types of functions that may be used to produce an authenticator. These may be grouped into three classes. • Hash function: A function that maps a message of any length into a fixedlength hash value, which serves as the authenticator • Message encryption: The ciphertext of the entire message serves as its authenticator • Message authentication code (MAC): A function of the message and a secret key that produces a fixed-length value that serves as the authenticator Hash functions, and how they may serve for message authentication, are discussed in Chapter 11. The remainder of this section briefly examines the remaining two topics. The remainder of the chapter elaborates on the topic of MACs.

Message Encryption Message encryption by itself can provide a measure of authentication. The analysis differs for symmetric and public-key encryption schemes. SYMMETRIC ENCRYPTION Consider the straightforward use of symmetric encryption (Figure 12.1a). A message M transmitted from source A to destination B is encrypted using a secret key K shared by A and B. If no other party knows the key, then confidentiality is provided: No other party can recover the plaintext of the message. In addition, B is assured that the message was generated by A. Why? The message must have come from A, because A is the only other party that possesses K and therefore the only other party with the information necessary to construct ciphertext that can be decrypted with K. Furthermore, if M is recovered, B knows that none of the bits of M have been altered, because an opponent that does not know K would not know how to alter bits in the ciphertext to produce the desired changes in the plaintext. So we may say that symmetric encryption provides authentication as well as confidentiality. However, this flat statement needs to be qualified. Consider exactly what is happening at B. Given a decryption function D and a secret key K, the destination will accept any input X and produce output Y = D(K, X). If X is the ciphertext of a legitimate message M produced by the corresponding encryption function, then Y is some plaintext message M . Otherwise, Y will likely be a meaningless sequence of bits. There may need to be some automated means of determining at B whether Y is legitimate plaintext and therefore must have come from A.

366

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

Source A M

Destination B M

D

E E(K, M)

K

K

(a) Symmetric encryption: confidentiality and authentication

M

E

M

D E(PUb, M)

PUb

PRb

(b) Public-key encryption: confidentiality

M

E

M

D E(PRa, M)

PRa

PUa

(c) Public-key encryption: authentication and signature

M

E

E

PRa E(PRa, M) PUb

D E(PUb, E(PRa, M))

D

M

PRb E(PRa, M) PUa

(d) Public-key encryption: confidentiality, authentication, and signature Figure 12.1 Basic Uses of Message Encryption

The implications of the line of reasoning in the preceding paragraph are profound from the point of view of authentication. Suppose the message M can be any arbitrary bit pattern. In that case, there is no way to determine automatically, at the destination, whether an incoming message is the ciphertext of a legitimate message. This conclusion is incontrovertible: If M can be any bit pattern, then regardless of the value of X, the value Y = D(K, X) is some bit pattern and therefore must be accepted as authentic plaintext. Thus, in general, we require that only a small subset of all possible bit patterns be considered legitimate plaintext. In that case, any spurious ciphertext is unlikely to produce legitimate plaintext. For example, suppose that only one bit pattern in 106 is legitimate plaintext. Then the probability that any randomly chosen bit pattern, treated as ciphertext, will produce a legitimate plaintext message is only 10 - 6. For a number of applications and encryption schemes, the desired conditions prevail as a matter of course. For example, suppose that we are transmitting Englishlanguage messages using a Caesar cipher with a shift of one (K  1). A sends the following legitimate ciphertext: nbsftfbupbutboeepftfbupbutboemjuumfmbnctfbujwz

12.2 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION FUNCTIONS

367

B decrypts to produce the following plaintext: mareseatoatsanddoeseatoatsandlittlelambseativy A simple frequency analysis confirms that this message has the profile of ordinary English. On the other hand, if an opponent generates the following random sequence of letters: zuvrsoevgqxlzwigamdvnmhpmccxiuureosfbcebtqxsxq this decrypts to ytuqrndufpwkyvhfzlcumlgolbbwhttqdnreabdaspwrwp which does not fit the profile of ordinary English. It may be difficult to determine automatically if incoming ciphertext decrypts to intelligible plaintext. If the plaintext is, say, a binary object file or digitized X-rays, determination of properly formed and therefore authentic plaintext may be difficult. Thus, an opponent could achieve a certain level of disruption simply by issuing messages with random content purporting to come from a legitimate user. One solution to this problem is to force the plaintext to have some structure that is easily recognized but that cannot be replicated without recourse to the encryption function. We could, for example, append an error-detecting code, also known as a frame check sequence (FCS) or checksum, to each message before encryption, as illustrated in Figure 12.2a. A prepares a plaintext message M and then provides this as input to a function F that produces an FCS. The FCS is appended to M and the entire block is then encrypted. At the destination, B

Source A ||

M

Destination B M

E

D

F(M)

F

M

Compare

F(M)

K

E(K, [M || F(M)])

K

F

(a) Internal error control

M

K

E(K, M)

K

D

||

E

F E(K, M)

Compare F

F(E(K, M))

(b) External error control Figure 12.2 Internal and External Error Control

M

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

decrypts the incoming block and treats the results as a message with an appended FCS. B applies the same function F to attempt to reproduce the FCS. If the calculated FCS is equal to the incoming FCS, then the message is considered authentic. It is unlikely that any random sequence of bits would exhibit the desired relationship. Note that the order in which the FCS and encryption functions are performed is critical. The sequence illustrated in Figure 12.2a is referred to in [DIFF79] as internal error control, which the authors contrast with external error control (Figure 12.2b). With internal error control, authentication is provided because an opponent would have difficulty generating ciphertext that, when decrypted, would have valid error control bits. If instead the FCS is the outer code, an opponent can construct messages with valid error-control codes. Although the opponent cannot know what the decrypted plaintext will be, he or she can still hope to create confusion and disrupt operations. An error-control code is just one example; in fact, any sort of structuring added to the transmitted message serves to strengthen the authentication capability. Such structure is provided by the use of a communications architecture consisting of layered protocols. As an example, consider the structure of messages transmitted using the TCP/IP protocol architecture. Figure 12.3 shows the format of a TCP segment, illustrating the TCP header. Now suppose that each pair of hosts shared a unique secret key, so that all exchanges between a pair of hosts used the same key, regardless of application. Then we could simply encrypt all of the datagram except the IP header. Again, if an opponent substituted some arbitrary bit pattern for the encrypted TCP segment, the resulting plaintext would not include a meaningful header. In this case, the header includes not only a checksum (which covers the header) but also other useful information, such as the sequence number. Because successive TCP segments on a given connection are numbered sequentially, encryption assures that an opponent does not delay, misorder, or delete any segments. P UBLIC -K EY E NCRYPTION The straightforward use of public-key encryption (Figure 12.1b) provides confidentiality but not authentication. The source (A) uses the public key PUb of the destination (B) to encrypt M. Because only B has the Bit: 0

4

10

16

Source port 20 octets

368

31 Destination port

Sequence number Acknowledgment number Data offset

Reserved

Flags

Checksum

Urgent pointer Options  padding

Application data

Figure 12.3 TCP Segment

Window

12.2 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION FUNCTIONS

369

corresponding private key PRb, only B can decrypt the message. This scheme provides no authentication, because any opponent could also use B’s public key to encrypt a message and claim to be A. To provide authentication, A uses its private key to encrypt the message, and B uses A’s public key to decrypt (Figure 12.1c). This provides authentication using the same type of reasoning as in the symmetric encryption case: The message must have come from A because A is the only party that possesses PRa and therefore the only party with the information necessary to construct ciphertext that can be decrypted with PUa. Again, the same reasoning as before applies: There must be some internal structure to the plaintext so that the receiver can distinguish between well-formed plaintext and random bits. Assuming there is such structure, then the scheme of Figure 12.1c does provide authentication. It also provides what is known as digital signature.1 Only A could have constructed the ciphertext because only A possesses PRa . Not even B, the recipient, could have constructed the ciphertext. Therefore, if B is in possession of the ciphertext, B has the means to prove that the message must have come from A. In effect, A has “signed” the message by using its private key to encrypt. Note that this scheme does not provide confidentiality. Anyone in possession of A’s public key can decrypt the ciphertext. To provide both confidentiality and authentication, A can encrypt M first using its private key, which provides the digital signature, and then using B’s public key, which provides confidentiality (Figure 12.1d). The disadvantage of this approach is that the public-key algorithm, which is complex, must be exercised four times rather than two in each communication.

Message Authentication Code An alternative authentication technique involves the use of a secret key to generate a small fixed-size block of data, known as a cryptographic checksum or MAC, that is appended to the message. This technique assumes that two communicating parties, say A and B, share a common secret key K. When A has a message to send to B, it calculates the MAC as a function of the message and the key: MAC = MAC(K, M) where M = input message C = MAC function K = shared secret key MAC = message authentication code The message plus MAC are transmitted to the intended recipient. The recipient performs the same calculation on the received message, using the same secret key, to

1

This is not the way in which digital signatures are constructed, as we shall see, but the principle is the same.

370

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

Source A

Destination B ||

M

C

M

K

K

C

Compare

C(K, M)

(a) Message authentication ||

M

E

M

D

K1 K2

E(K2, [M || C(K1, M)])

C

C K1

K2

Compare

C(K1, M)

(b) Message authentication and confidentiality; authentication tied to plaintext E(K2, M) M

E K2

D

||

C

K1

Compare

M

K2

K1 C

C(K1, E(K2, M))

(c) Message authentication and confidentiality; authentication tied to ciphertext Figure 12.4 Basic Uses of Message Authentication code (MAC)

generate a new MAC. The received MAC is compared to the calculated MAC (Figure 12.4a). If we assume that only the receiver and the sender know the identity of the secret key, and if the received MAC matches the calculated MAC, then 1. The receiver is assured that the message has not been altered. If an attacker alters the message but does not alter the MAC, then the receiver’s calculation of the MAC will differ from the received MAC. Because the attacker is assumed not to know the secret key, the attacker cannot alter the MAC to correspond to the alterations in the message. 2. The receiver is assured that the message is from the alleged sender. Because no one else knows the secret key, no one else could prepare a message with a proper MAC. 3. If the message includes a sequence number (such as is used with HDLC, X.25, and TCP), then the receiver can be assured of the proper sequence because an attacker cannot successfully alter the sequence number. A MAC function is similar to encryption. One difference is that the MAC algorithm need not be reversible, as it must be for decryption. In general, the MAC function is a many-to-one function. The domain of the function consists of messages of some arbitrary length, whereas the range consists of all possible MACs and all possible keys. If an n-bit MAC is used, then there are 2n possible MACs, whereas

12.2 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION FUNCTIONS

371

there are N possible messages with N 77 2n. Furthermore, with a k-bit key, there are 2k possible keys. For example, suppose that we are using 100-bit messages and a 10-bit MAC. Then, there are a total of 2100 different messages but only 210 different MACs. So, on average, each MAC value is generated by a total of 2100/210 = 290 different messages. If a 5-bit key is used, then there are 25 = 32 different mappings from the set of messages to the set of MAC values. It turns out that, because of the mathematical properties of the authentication function, it is less vulnerable to being broken than encryption. The process depicted in Figure 12.4a provides authentication but not confidentiality, because the message as a whole is transmitted in the clear. Confidentiality can be provided by performing message encryption either after (Figure 12.4b) or before (Figure 12.4c) the MAC algorithm. In both these cases, two separate keys are needed, each of which is shared by the sender and the receiver. In the first case, the MAC is calculated with the message as input and is then concatenated to the message. The entire block is then encrypted. In the second case, the message is encrypted first. Then the MAC is calculated using the resulting ciphertext and is concatenated to the ciphertext to form the transmitted block. Typically, it is preferable to tie the authentication directly to the plaintext, so the method of Figure 12.4b is used. Because symmetric encryption will provide authentication and because it is widely used with readily available products, why not simply use this instead of a separate message authentication code? [DAVI89] suggests three situations in which a message authentication code is used. 1. There are a number of applications in which the same message is broadcast to a number of destinations. Examples are notification to users that the network is now unavailable or an alarm signal in a military control center. It is cheaper and more reliable to have only one destination responsible for monitoring authenticity. Thus, the message must be broadcast in plaintext with an associated message authentication code. The responsible system has the secret key and performs authentication. If a violation occurs, the other destination systems are alerted by a general alarm. 2. Another possible scenario is an exchange in which one side has a heavy load and cannot afford the time to decrypt all incoming messages. Authentication is carried out on a selective basis, messages being chosen at random for checking. 3. Authentication of a computer program in plaintext is an attractive service. The computer program can be executed without having to decrypt it every time, which would be wasteful of processor resources. However, if a message authentication code were attached to the program, it could be checked whenever assurance was required of the integrity of the program. Three other rationales may be added. 4. For some applications, it may not be of concern to keep messages secret, but it is important to authenticate messages. An example is the Simple Network Management Protocol Version 3 (SNMPv3), which separates the functions of

372

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

confidentiality and authentication. For this application, it is usually important for a managed system to authenticate incoming SNMP messages, particularly if the message contains a command to change parameters at the managed system. On the other hand, it may not be necessary to conceal the SNMP traffic. 5. Separation of authentication and confidentiality functions affords architectural flexibility. For example, it may be desired to perform authentication at the application level but to provide confidentiality at a lower level, such as the transport layer. 6. A user may wish to prolong the period of protection beyond the time of reception and yet allow processing of message contents. With message encryption, the protection is lost when the message is decrypted, so the message is protected against fraudulent modifications only in transit but not within the target system. Finally, note that the MAC does not provide a digital signature, because both sender and receiver share the same key.

12.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES A MAC, also known as a cryptographic checksum, is generated by a function C of the form T = MAC(K, M) where M is a variable-length message, K is a secret key shared only by sender and receiver, and MAC(K, M) is the fixed-length authenticator, sometimes called a tag. The tag is appended to the message at the source at a time when the message is assumed or known to be correct. The receiver authenticates that message by recomputing the tag. When an entire message is encrypted for confidentiality, using either symmetric or asymmetric encryption, the security of the scheme generally depends on the bit length of the key. Barring some weakness in the algorithm, the opponent must resort to a brute-force attack using all possible keys. On average, such an attack will require 2(k - 1) attempts for a k-bit key. In particular, for a ciphertextonly attack, the opponent, given ciphertext C, performs Pi = D(Ki, C) for all possible key values Ki until a Pi is produced that matches the form of acceptable plaintext. In the case of a MAC, the considerations are entirely different. In general, the MAC function is a many-to-one function, due to the many-to-one nature of the function. Using brute-force methods, how would an opponent attempt to discover a key? If confidentiality is not employed, the opponent has access to plaintext messages and their associated MACs. Suppose k 7 n; that is, suppose that the key size is greater than the MAC size. Then, given a known M1 and T1, with T1 = MAC(K, M1), the cryptanalyst can perform Ti = MAC(Ki, M1) for all possible key values ki. At least one key is guaranteed to produce a match of Ti = T1. Note that a total of 2k tags will be produced, but there are only 2n 6 2k different tag values. Thus, a number of keys will produce the correct tag and the opponent has no

12.3 / REQUIREMENTS FOR MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

373

way of knowing which is the correct key. On average, a total of 2k/2n = 2(k - n) keys will produce a match. Thus, the opponent must iterate the attack. • Round 1 Given: M1, T1 = MAC(K, M1) Compute Ti = MAC(Ki, M1) for all 2k keys Number of matches ≈ 2(k - n) • Round 2 Given: M2, T2 = MAC(K, M2) Compute Ti = MAC(Ki, M2) for the 21k - n) keys resulting from Round 1 Number of matches ≈ 21k - 2 * n)

And so on. On average, α rounds will be needed if k = a * n. For example, if an 80-bit key is used and the tab is 32 bits, then the first round will produce about 248 possible keys. The second round will narrow the possible keys to about 216 possibilities. The third round should produce only a single key, which must be the one used by the sender. If the key length is less than or equal to the tag length, then it is likely that a first round will produce a single match. It is possible that more than one key will produce such a match, in which case the opponent would need to perform the same test on a new (message, tag) pair. Thus, a brute-force attempt to discover the authentication key is no less effort and may be more effort than that required to discover a decryption key of the same length. However, other attacks that do not require the discovery of the key are possible. Consider the following MAC algorithm. Let M = (X1 || X2 || Á || Xm) be a message that is treated as a concatenation of 64-bit blocks Xi. Then define ¢(M) = X1 䊝 X2 䊝 Á 䊝 Xm MAC(K, M) = E(K, ¢(M)) where 䊝 is the exclusive-OR (XOR) operation and the encryption algorithm is DES in electronic codebook mode. Thus, the key length is 56 bits, and the tag length is 64 bits. If an opponent observes {M || MAC(K, M)}, a brute-force attempt to determine K will require at least 256 encryptions. But the opponent can attack the system by replacing X1 through Xm - 1 with any desired values Y1 through Ym - 1 and replacing Xm with Ym, where Ym is calculated as Ym = Y1 䊝 Y2 䊝 Á 䊝 Ym - 1 䊝 ¢(M) The opponent can now concatenate the new message, which consists of Y1 through Ym, using the original tag to form a message that will be accepted as authentic by the receiver. With this tactic, any message of length 64 * (m - 1) bits can be fraudulently inserted. Thus, in assessing the security of a MAC function, we need to consider the types of attacks that may be mounted against it. With that in mind, let us state the requirements for the function. Assume that an opponent knows the MAC function

374

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

but does not know K . Then the MAC function should satisfy the following requirements. 1. If an opponent observes M and MAC(K, M), it should be computationally infeasible for the opponent to construct a message M¿ such that MAC(K, M¿) = MAC(K, M) 2. MAC(K, M) should be uniformly distributed in the sense that for randomly chosen messages, M and M¿ , the probability that MAC(K, M) = MAC(K, M¿) is 2 - n, where n is the number of bits in the tag. 3. Let M¿ be equal to some known transformation on M. That is, M¿ = f(M). For example, f may involve inverting one or more specific bits. In that case, Pr [MAC(K, M) = MAC(K, M¿)] = 2 - n The first requirement speaks to the earlier example, in which an opponent is able to construct a new message to match a given tag, even though the opponent does not know and does not learn the key. The second requirement deals with the need to thwart a brute-force attack based on chosen plaintext. That is, if we assume that the opponent does not know K but does have access to the MAC function and can present messages for MAC generation, then the opponent could try various messages until finding one that matches a given tag. If the MAC function exhibits uniform distribution, then a brute-force method would require, on average, 2(n - 1) attempts before finding a message that fits a given tag. The final requirement dictates that the authentication algorithm should not be weaker with respect to certain parts or bits of the message than others. If this were not the case, then an opponent who had M and MAC(K, M) could attempt variations on M at the known “weak spots” with a likelihood of early success at producing a new message that matched the old tags.

12.4 SECURITY OF MACS Just as with encryption algorithms and hash functions, we can group attacks on MACs into two categories: brute-force attacks and cryptanalysis.

Brute-Force Attacks A brute-force attack on a MAC is a more difficult undertaking than a brute-force attack on a hash function because it requires known message-tag pairs. Let us see why this is so. To attack a hash code, we can proceed in the following way. Given a fixed message x with n-bit hash code h = H(x), a brute-force method of finding a collision is to pick a random bit string y and check if H(y) = H(x). The attacker can do this repeatedly off line. Whether an off-line attack can be used on a MAC algorithm depends on the relative size of the key and the tag. To proceed, we need to state the desired security property of a MAC algorithm, which can be expressed as follows. • Computation resistance: Given one or more text-MAC pairs [xi, MAC(K, xi)], it is computationally infeasible to compute any text-MAC pair [x, MAC(K, x)] for any new input x Z xi.

12.5 / MACS BASED ON HASH FUNCTIONS: HMAC

375

In other words, the attacker would like to come up with the valid MAC code for a given message x. There are two lines of attack possible: attack the key space and attack the MAC value. We examine each of these in turn. If an attacker can determine the MAC key, then it is possible to generate a valid MAC value for any input x. Suppose the key size is k bits and that the attacker has one known text–tag pair. Then the attacker can compute the n-bit tag on the known text for all possible keys. At least one key is guaranteed to produce the correct tag, namely, the valid key that was initially used to produce the known text–tag pair. This phase of the attack takes a level of effort proportional to 2k (that is, one operation for each of the 2k possible key values). However, as was described earlier, because the MAC is a many-to-one mapping, there may be other keys that produce the correct value. Thus, if more than one key is found to produce the correct value, additional text–tag pairs must be tested. It can be shown that the level of effort drops off rapidly with each additional text–MAC pair and that the overall level of effort is roughly 2k [MENE97]. An attacker can also work on the tag without attempting to recover the key. Here, the objective is to generate a valid tag for a given message or to find a message that matches a given tag. In either case, the level of effort is comparable to that for attacking the one-way or weak collision-resistant property of a hash code, or 2n . In the case of the MAC, the attack cannot be conducted off line without further input; the attacker will require chosen text–tag pairs or knowledge of the key. To summarize, the level of effort for brute-force attack on a MAC algorithm can be expressed as min(2k, 2n). The assessment of strength is similar to that for symmetric encryption algorithms. It would appear reasonable to require that the key length and tag length satisfy a relationship such as min(k, n) Ú N, where N is perhaps in the range of 128 bits.

Cryptanalysis As with encryption algorithms and hash functions, cryptanalytic attacks on MAC algorithms seek to exploit some property of the algorithm to perform some attack other than an exhaustive search. The way to measure the resistance of a MAC algorithm to cryptanalysis is to compare its strength to the effort required for a brute-force attack. That is, an ideal MAC algorithm will require a cryptanalytic effort greater than or equal to the brute-force effort. There is much more variety in the structure of MACs than in hash functions, so it is difficult to generalize about the cryptanalysis of MACs. Furthermore, far less work has been done on developing such attacks. A useful survey of some methods for specific MACs is [PREN96].

12.5 MACS BASED ON HASH FUNCTIONS: HMAC Later in this chapter, we look at examples of a MAC based on the use of a symmetric block cipher. This has traditionally been the most common approach to constructing a MAC. In recent years, there has been increased interest in developing

376

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

a MAC derived from a cryptographic hash function. The motivations for this interest are 1. Cryptographic hash functions such as MD5 and SHA generally execute faster in software than symmetric block ciphers such as DES. 2. Library code for cryptographic hash functions is widely available. With the development of AES and the more widespread availability of code for encryption algorithms, these considerations are less significant, but hash-based MACs continue to be widely used. A hash function such as SHA was not designed for use as a MAC and cannot be used directly for that purpose, because it does not rely on a secret key. There have been a number of proposals for the incorporation of a secret key into an existing hash algorithm. The approach that has received the most support is HMAC [BELL96a, BELL96b]. HMAC has been issued as RFC 2104, has been chosen as the mandatory-to-implement MAC for IP security, and is used in other Internet protocols, such as SSL. HMAC has also been issued as a NIST standard (FIPS 198).

HMAC Design Objectives RFC 2104 lists the following design objectives for HMAC. • To use, without modifications, available hash functions. In particular, to use hash functions that perform well in software and for which code is freely and widely available. • To allow for easy replaceability of the embedded hash function in case faster or more secure hash functions are found or required. • To preserve the original performance of the hash function without incurring a significant degradation. • To use and handle keys in a simple way. • To have a well understood cryptographic analysis of the strength of the authentication mechanism based on reasonable assumptions about the embedded hash function. The first two objectives are important to the acceptability of HMAC. HMAC treats the hash function as a “black box.” This has two benefits. First, an existing implementation of a hash function can be used as a module in implementing HMAC. In this way, the bulk of the HMAC code is prepackaged and ready to use without modification. Second, if it is ever desired to replace a given hash function in an HMAC implementation, all that is required is to remove the existing hash function module and drop in the new module. This could be done if a faster hash function were desired. More important, if the security of the embedded hash function were compromised, the security of HMAC could be retained simply by replacing the embedded hash function with a more secure one (e.g., replacing SHA-2 with SHA-3). The last design objective in the preceding list is, in fact, the main advantage of HMAC over other proposed hash-based schemes. HMAC can be proven secure

12.5 / MACS BASED ON HASH FUNCTIONS: HMAC

377

provided that the embedded hash function has some reasonable cryptographic strengths. We return to this point later in this section, but first we examine the structure of HMAC.

HMAC Algorithm Figure 12.5 illustrates the overall operation of HMAC. Define the following terms. H = embedded hash function (e.g., MD5, SHA-1, RIPEMD-160) IV = initial value input to hash function M = message input to HMAC (including the padding specified in the embedded hash function) Yi  i th block of M, 0  i  (L – 1) L  number of blocks in M b  number of bits in a block n  length of hash code produced by embedded hash function K  secret key; recommended length is n; if key length is greater than b, the key is input to the hash function to produce an n-bit key

K

ipad 䊝 b bits

b bits

b bits

Y0

Y1

YL1

Si

IV

K

n bits

Hash n bits

opad

H(Si || M) 䊝 b bits

Pad to b bits

So

IV

n bits

Hash n bits

HMAC(K, M) Figure 12.5 HMAC Structure

378

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

K+  K padded with zeros on the left so that the result is b bits in length ipad  00110110 (36 in hexadecimal) repeated b/8 times opad  01011100 (5C in hexadecimal) repeated b/8 times Then HMAC can be expressed as HMAC(K, M) = H[(K + 䊝 opad) || H[(K + 䊝 ipad) || M]] We can describe the algorithm as follows. 1. Append zeros to the left end of K to create a b-bit string K + (e.g., if K is of length 160 bits and b = 512, then K will be appended with 44 zeroes). 2. XOR (bitwise exclusive-OR) K + with ipad to produce the b-bit block Si. 3. Append M to Si. 4. Apply H to the stream generated in step 3. 5. XOR K + with opad to produce the b-bit block So. 6. Append the hash result from step 4 to So. 7. Apply H to the stream generated in step 6 and output the result. Note that the XOR with ipad results in flipping one-half of the bits of K . Similarly, the XOR with opad results in flipping one-half of the bits of K, using a different set of bits. In effect, by passing Si and So through the compression function of the hash algorithm, we have pseudorandomly generated two keys from K. HMAC should execute in approximately the same time as the embedded hash function for long messages. HMAC adds three executions of the hash compression function (for Si, So, and the block produced from the inner hash). A more efficient implementation is possible, as shown in Figure 12.6. Two quantities are precomputed: f(IV, (K + 䊝 ipad)) f(IV, (K + 䊝 opad)) where f(cv, block) is the compression function for the hash function, which takes as arguments a chaining variable of n bits and a block of b bits and produces a chaining variable of n bits. These quantities only need to be computed initially and every time the key changes. In effect, the precomputed quantities substitute for the initial value (IV) in the hash function. With this implementation, only one additional instance of the compression function is added to the processing normally produced by the hash function. This more efficient implementation is especially worthwhile if most of the messages for which a MAC is computed are short.

Security of HMAC The security of any MAC function based on an embedded hash function depends in some way on the cryptographic strength of the underlying hash function. The appeal of HMAC is that its designers have been able to prove an exact relationship between the strength of the embedded hash function and the strength of HMAC.

12.5 / MACS BASED ON HASH FUNCTIONS: HMAC

Precomputed K

379

Computed per message

ipad 䊝 Si

b bits

b bits

b bits

Y0

Y1

YL1

b bits

IV

n bits

f

Hash n bits

K

opad

H(Si || M)

䊝

Pad to b bits

So b bits

IV

f

n bits

f n bits

HMAC(K, M) Figure 12.6 Efficient Implementation of HMAC

The security of a MAC function is generally expressed in terms of the probability of successful forgery with a given amount of time spent by the forger and a given number of message–tag pairs created with the same key. In essence, it is proved in [BELL96a] that for a given level of effort (time, message–tag pairs) on messages generated by a legitimate user and seen by the attacker, the probability of successful attack on HMAC is equivalent to one of the following attacks on the embedded hash function. 1. The attacker is able to compute an output of the compression function even with an IV that is random, secret, and unknown to the attacker. 2. The attacker finds collisions in the hash function even when the IV is random and secret. In the first attack, we can view the compression function as equivalent to the hash function applied to a message consisting of a single b-bit block. For this attack, the IV of the hash function is replaced by a secret, random value of n bits. An attack on this hash function requires either a brute-force attack on the key, which is a level of effort on the order of 2n, or a birthday attack, which is a special case of the second attack, discussed next.

380

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

In the second attack, the attacker is looking for two messages M and M¿ that produce the same hash: H(M) = H(M¿). This is the birthday attack discussed in Chapter 11. We have shown that this requires a level of effort of 2n/2 for a hash length of n. On this basis, the security of MD5 is called into question, because a level of effort of 264 looks feasible with today’s technology. Does this mean that a 128-bit hash function such as MD5 is unsuitable for HMAC? The answer is no, because of the following argument. To attack MD5, the attacker can choose any set of messages and work on these off line on a dedicated computing facility to find a collision. Because the attacker knows the hash algorithm and the default IV, the attacker can generate the hash code for each of the messages that the attacker generates. However, when attacking HMAC, the attacker cannot generate message/code pairs off line because the attacker does not know K. Therefore, the attacker must observe a sequence of messages generated by HMAC under the same key and perform the attack on these known messages. For a hash code length of 128 bits, this requires 264 observed blocks (272 bits) generated using the same key. On a 1-Gbps link, one would need to observe a continuous stream of messages with no change in key for about 150,000 years in order to succeed. Thus, if speed is a concern, it is fully acceptable to use MD5 rather than SHA-1 as the embedded hash function for HMAC.

12.6 MACS BASED ON BLOCK CIPHERS: DAA AND CMAC In this section, we look at two MACs that are based on the use of a block cipher mode of operation. We begin with an older algorithm, the Data Authentication Algorithm (DAA), which is now obsolete. Then we examine CMAC, which is designed to overcome the deficiencies of DAA.

Data Authentication Algorithm The Data Authentication Algorithm (DAA), based on DES, has been one of the most widely used MACs for a number of years. The algorithm is both a FIPS publication (FIPS PUB 113) and an ANSI standard (X9.17). However, as we discuss subsequently, security weaknesses in this algorithm have been discovered, and it is being replaced by newer and stronger algorithms. The algorithm can be defined as using the cipher block chaining (CBC) mode of operation of DES (Figure 6.4) with an initialization vector of zero. The data (e.g., message, record, file, or program) to be authenticated are grouped into contiguous 64-bit blocks: D1, D2, Á , DN. If necessary, the final block is padded on the right with zeroes to form a full 64-bit block. Using the DES encryption algorithm E and a secret key K, a data authentication code (DAC) is calculated as follows (Figure 12.7). O1 O2 O3

= = =

E(K, D) E(K, [D2 䊝 O1]) E(K, [D3 䊝 O2])

ON

=

E(K, [DN 䊝 ON - 1])

# # #

12.6 / MACS BASED ON BLOCK CIPHERS: DAA AND CMAC

K (56 bits)

381

Time  1

Time  2

Time  N  1

Time  N

D1 (64 bits)

D2

DN1

DN







DES encrypt

O1 (64 bits)

K

DES encrypt

K

O2

DES encrypt

ON1

K

DES encrypt

ON DAC (16 to 64 bits)

Figure 12.7 Data Authentication Algorithm (FIPS PUB 113)

The DAC consists of either the entire block ON or the leftmost M bits of the block, with 16 … M … 64.

Cipher-Based Message Authentication Code (CMAC) As was mentioned, DAA has been widely adopted in government and industry. [BELL00] demonstrated that this MAC is secure under a reasonable set of security criteria, with the following restriction. Only messages of one fixed length of mn bits are processed, where n is the cipher block size and m is a fixed positive integer. As a simple example, notice that given the CBC MAC of a one-block message X, say T = MAC(K, X), the adversary immediately knows the CBC MAC for the twoblock message X || (X { T) since this is once again T. Black and Rogaway [BLAC00] demonstrated that this limitation could be overcome using three keys: one key of length K to be used at each step of the cipher block chaining and two keys of length n, where k is the key length and n is the cipher block length. This proposed construction was refined by Iwata and Kurosawa so that the two n-bit keys could be derived from the encryption key, rather than being provided separately [IWAT03]. This refinement, adopted by NIST, is the Cipher-based Message Authentication Code (CMAC) mode of operation for use with AES and triple DES. It is specified in NIST Special Publication 800-38B. First, let us define the operation of CMAC when the message is an integer multiple n of the cipher block length b . For AES, b = 128 , and for triple DES, b = 64 . The message is divided into n blocks ( M1, M2, . . . , Mn). The algorithm makes use of a k-bit encryption key K and an n-bit constant, K1. For AES, the key size k is 128, 192, or 256 bits; for triple DES, the key size is 112 or 168 bits. CMAC is calculated as follows (Figure 12.8).

382

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES M1

M2

Mn

b

K1

k K

Encrypt

K

Encrypt

K

Encrypt

MSB(Tlen)

T

(a) Message length is integer multiple of block size M1

Mn

M2

10...0

K2

K

Encrypt

K

Encrypt

K

Encrypt

MSB(Tlen)

T

(b) Message length is not integer multiple of block size Figure 12.8 Cipher-Based Message Authentication Code (CMAC)

C1 C2 C3

= = =

E(K, M1) E(K, [M2 䊝 C1]) E(K, [M3 䊝 C2])

Cn T

= =

E(K, [Mn 䊝 Cn - 1 䊝 K1]) MSBTlen(Cn)

# # #

where T = message authetication code, also referred to as the tag Tlen = bit length of T MSBs(X) = the s leftmost bits of the bit string X If the message is not an integer multiple of the cipher block length, then the final block is padded to the right (least significant bits) with a 1 and as many 0s as necessary so that the final block is also of length b. The CMAC operation then proceeds as before, except that a different n-bit key K2 is used instead of K1.

12.7 / AUTHENTICATED ENCRYPTION: CCM AND GCM

383

The two n-bit keys are derived from the k-bit encryption key as follows.

#

# #

L = E(K, 0n) K1 = L x K2 = L x2 = (L x) x

# #

where multiplication ( ) is done in the finite field GF(2n) and x and x2 are first- and second-order polynomials that are elements of GF(2n). Thus, the binary representation of x consists of n - 2 zeros followed by 10; the binary representation of x2 consists of n - 3 zeros followed by 100. The finite field is defined with respect to an irreducible polynomial that is lexicographically first among all such polynomials with the minimum possible number of nonzero terms. For the two approved block sizes, the polynomials are x64 + x4 + x3 + x + 1 and x128 + x7 + x2 + x + 1. To generate K1 and K2, the block cipher is applied to the block that consists entirely of 0 bits. The first subkey is derived from the resulting ciphertext by a left shift of one bit and, conditionally, by XORing a constant that depends on the block size. The second subkey is derived in the same manner from the first subkey. This property of finite fields of the form GF(2n) was explained in the discussion of MixColumns in Chapter 5.

12.7 AUTHENTICATED ENCRYPTION: CCM AND GCM Authenticated encryption (AE) is a term used to describe encryption systems that simultaneously protect confidentiality and authenticity (integrity) of communications. Many applications and protocols require both forms of security, but until recently the two services have been designed separately. [BLAC05] discussed four common approaches to providing both confidentiality and encryption for a message M. • HtE: Hash-then-encrypt. First compute the cryptographic hash function over M as h = H(M). Then encrypt the message plus hash function: E(K, (M||h)). • MtE: MAC-then-encrypt. Use two keys. First authenticate the plaintext by computing the MAC value as T = MAC(K1, M). Then encrypt the message plus tag: E(K2, (M || T). This approach is taken by the SSL/TLS protocols (Chapter 16). • EtM: Encrypt-then-MAC. Use two keys. First encrypt the message to yield the ciphertext C = E(K2, M) . Then authenticate the ciphertext with T = MAC(K1, C) to yield the pair (C, T). This approach is used in the IPsec protocol (Chapter 19). • E&M: Encrypt-and-MAC. Use two keys. Encrypt the message to yield the ciphertext C = E(K2, M). Authenticate the plaintext with T = MAC(K1, M) to yield the pair (C, T). These operations can be performed in either order. This approach is used by the SSH protocol (Chapter 16). Both decryption and verification are straightforward for each approach. For HtE, MtE, and E&M, decrypt first, then verify. For EtM, verify first, then decrypt. There are security vulnerabilities with all of these approaches. The HtE approach is

384

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

used in the Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP) protocol to protect WiFi networks. This approach had fundamental weaknesses and led to the replacement of the WEP protocol. [BLAC05] and [BELL00] point out that there security concerns in each of the three encryption/MAC approaches listed above. Nevertheless, with proper design, any of these approaches can provide a high level of security. This is the goal of the two approaches discussed in this section, both of which have been standardized by NIST.

Counter with Cipher Block Chaining-Message Authentication Code The CCM mode of operation was standardized by NIST specifically to support the security requirements of IEEE 802.11 WiFi wireless local area networks (Chapter 17), but can be used in any networking application requiring authenticated encryption. CCM is a variation of the encrypt-and-MAC approach to authenticated encryption. It is defined in NIST SP 800-38C. The key algorithmic ingredients of CCM are the AES encryption algorithm (Chapter 5), the CTR mode of operation (Chapter 6), and the CMAC authentication algorithm (Section 12.6). A single key K is used for both encryption and MAC algorithms. The input to the CCM encryption process consists of three elements. 1. Data that will be both authenticated and encrypted. This is the plaintext message P of data block. 2. Associated data A that will be authenticated but not encrypted. An example is a protocol header that must be transmitted in the clear for proper protocol operation but which needs to be authenticated. 3. A nonce N that is assigned to the payload and the associated data. This is a unique value that is different for every instance during the lifetime of a protocol association and is intended to prevent replay attacks and certain other types of attacks. Figure 12.9 illustrates the operation of CCM. For authentication, the input includes the nonce, the associated data, and the plaintext. This input is formatted as a sequence of blocks B0 through Br. The first block contains the nonce plus some formatting bits that indicate the lengths of the N, A, and P elements. This is followed by zero or more blocks that contain A, followed by zero of more blocks that contain P. The resulting sequence of blocks serves as input to the CMAC algorithm, which produces a MAC value with length Tlen, which is less than or equal to the block length (Figure 12.9a). For encryption, a sequence of counters is generated that must be independent of the nonce. The authentication tag is encrypted in CTR mode using the single counter Ctr0. The Tlen most significant bits of the output are XORed with the tag to produce an encrypted tag. The remaining counters are used for the CTR mode encryption of the plaintext (Figure 6.7). The encrypted plaintext is concatenated with the encrypted tag to form the ciphertext output (Figure 12.9b). SP 800-38C defines the authentication/encryption process as follows. 1. Apply the formatting function to (N, A, P) to produce the blocks B0, B1, Á , Br. 2. Set Y0 = E(K, B0).

12.7 / AUTHENTICATED ENCRYPTION: CCM AND GCM Nonce

Ass. Data

B0

B1

385

Plaintext

B2

Br

CMAC

K

Tag

(a) Authentication

Ctr0

Plaintext

K Ctr1, Ctr2, ..., Ctrm K

Encrypt

CTR

MSB(Tlen) Tag

Ciphertext

(b) Encryption Figure 12.9 Counter with Cipher Block Chaining-Message Authentication Code (CCM)

3. For i = 1 to r, do Yi = E(K, (Bi { Yi - 1)). 4. Set T = MSBTlen(Yr). 5. Apply the counter generation function to generate the counter blocks Ctr0, Ctr1, Á , Ctrm, where m = < Plen/128 =. 6. For j = 0 to m, do Sj = E(K, Ctrj). 7. Set S = S1 || S2 || Á || Sm. 8. Return C = (P 䊝 MSBPlen(S)) || (T 䊝 MSBTlen(S0)).

386

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

For decryption and verification, the recipient requires the following input: the ciphertext C, the nonce N, the associated data A, the key K, and the initial counter Ctr0. The steps are as follows. 1. If Clen ≤ Tlen, then return INVALID. 2. Apply the counter generation function to generate the counter blocks Ctr0, Ctr1, Á, Ctrm, where m = < Clen/128 = . 3. For j = 0 to m, do Sj = E(K, Ctrj). 4. Set S = S1 || S2 || Á || Sm. 5. Set P = MSBClen - Tlen(C) { MSBClen - Tlen(S). 6. Set T = LSBTlen(C) { MSBTlen(S0). 7. Apply the formatting function to (N, A, P) to produce the blocks B0, B1, Á , Br. 8. Set Y0 = E(K, B0). 9. For i = 1 to r, do Yi = E(K, (Bi { Yi - 1)). 10. If T Z MSBTlen (Yr), then return INVALID, else return P. CCM is a relatively complex algorithm. Note that it requires two complete passes through the plaintext, once to generate the MAC value, and once for encryption. Further, the details of the specification require a tradeoff between the length of the nonce and the length of the tag, which is an unnecessary restriction. Also note that the encryption key is used twice with the CTR encryption mode: once to generate the tag and once to encrypt the plaintext plus tag. Whether these complexities add to the security of the algorithm is not clear. In any case, two analyses of the algorithm ([JONS02] and [ROGA03]) conclude that CCM provides a high level of security.

Galois/Counter Mode The GCM mode of operation, standardized by NIST in NIST SP 800-38D, is designed to be parallelizable so that it can provide high throughput with low cost and low latency. In essence, the message is encrypted in variant of CTR mode. The resulting ciphertext is multiplied with key material and message length information over GF(2128) to generate the authenticator tag. The standard also specifies a mode of operation that supplies the MAC only, known as GMAC. The GCM mode makes use of two functions: GHASH, which is a keyed hash function, and GCTR, which is essentially the CTR mode with the counters determined by a simple increment by one operation. GHASHH(X) takes a input the hash key H and a bit string X such that len(X) = 128m bits for some positive integer m and produces a 128-bit MAC value. The function may be specified as follows (Figure 12.10a). 1. Let X1, X2, Á , Xm - 1, Xm denote the unique sequence of blocks such that X = X1 || X2 || Á || Xm - 1 || Xm. 2. Let Y0 be a block of 128 zeros, designated as 0128. 3. For i = 1, Á , m, let Yi = (Yi - 1 䊝 Xi) H, where designates multiplication in GF(2128). 4. Return Ym.

#

#

12.7 / AUTHENTICATED ENCRYPTION: CCM AND GCM X1

X2

Xm

H

H

H

Y1

Y2

Ym

387

(a) GHASHH(X1 || X2 || . . . || Xm) = Ym

ICB

K

E

X1

CB2

inc

K

E

X2 Y1

CBn–1

K

CBn

inc

K

E

Xn–1 Y2

E

MSB Yn–1

Xn* Yn*

(b) GCTRK(ICB, X1 || X2 || . . . || Xn*) = Yn*

Figure 12.10 GCM Authentication and Encryption Functions

The GHASHH(X) function can be expressed as

#

#

#

#

(X1 Hm) 䊝 (X2 Hm - 1) 䊝 Á 䊝 (Xm - 1 H2) 䊝 (Xm H) This formulation has desirable performance implications. If the same hash key is to be used to authenticate multiple messages, then the values H2, H3, Á can be precalculated one time for use with each message to be authenticated. Then, the blocks of the data to be authenticated (X1, X2, Á , Xm) can be processed in parallel, because the computations are independent of one another. GCTRK(ICB, X) takes a input a secret key K and a bit string X arbitrary length and returns a ciphertext Y of bit length len(X). The function may be specified as follows (Figure 12.10b). 1. If X is the empty string, then return the empty string as Y. 2. Let n = < (len(X)/128) = . That is, n is the smallest integer greater than or equal to len(X)/128.

388

CHAPTER 12 / MESSAGE AUTHENTICATION CODES

3. Let X1, X2, Á , Xn - 1, X*n denote the unique sequence of bit strings such that X = X1 || X2 || Á ||Xn - 1 || X*n; X1, X2, Á , Xn - 1 are complete 128-bit blocks. 4. Let CB1 = ICB. 5. For, i = 2 to n let CBi = inc32(CBi - 1) , where the inc32(S) function increments the rightmost 32 bits of S by 1 mod 232 , and the remaining bits are unchanged. 6. For i = 1 to n - 1, do Yi = Xi 䊝 E(K, CBi). 7. Let Y*n = X*n 䊝 MSBlen(Xn*)(E(K, CBn)). 8. Let X = X1 || X2 || Á || Xn - 1 || Y*n 9. Return Y. Note that the counter values can be quickly generated and that the encryption operations can be performed in parallel. We can now define the overall authenticated encryption function (Figure 12.11). The input consists of a secret key K, an initialization vector IV, a plaintext P, and

IV

Plaintext

encode K incr

J0

0v

A = Ass. Data

GCTR

C = Ciphertext

0u

[len(A)]64

0

K

E

GHASH

H K J0

GCTR

MSBt

Tag

Figure 12.11 Galois Counter— Message Authentication Code (GCM)

[len(C)]64

12.8 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION USING HASH FUNCTIONS

389

additional authenticated data A. The notation [x]s means the s-bit binary representation of the nonnegative integer x. The steps are as follows. 1. Let H = E(K, 0128). 2. Define a block, J0, as If len(IV) = 96, then let J0 = IV || 031 || 1. If len (IV) Z 96, then let s = 128 < len(IV)/128 = - len(IV), and let J0 = GHASHH(IV || 0s + 64 || [len(IV)]64). 3. Let C = GCTRK(inc32(J0), P). 4. Let u = 128 b => 0 INPUT: a - positive integer b - nonnegative integer less than a

B.4 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

667

OUTPUT: g - greatest common divisor of a and b """ if (b < 0) or ( a 0 and q odd so that (n-1) == 2^k * q q = n-1 k = 0 while (1 == (q % 2)): k += 1 q = q.quo_rem(2)[0] # q/2 but with result of type Integer # (2) select random a in 1 < a < n-1 a = randint(1,n-1) a = R(a) # makes it so modular exponentiation is done fast # if a^q mod n == 1 then return inconclusive if (1 == a^q): return False # (3) for j = 0 to k-1 do: if a^(2^j * q) mod n = n-1 return inconclusive e = q for j in xrange(k): if (n-1) == (a^e): return False e = 2*e # (4) if you’ve made it here return composite.

B.7 / NUMBER THEORY

683

return True Example 3: Modular Exponentiation (Square and Multiply). def ModExp(x,e,N): r""" Calculates x^e mod N using square and multiply. INPUT: x - an integer. e - a nonnegative integer. N - a positive integer modulus. OUTPUT: y - x^e mod N """ e_bits = e.bits() e_bitlen = len(e_bits) y = 1 for j in xrange(e_bitlen): y = y^2 % N if (1 == e_bits[e_bitlen-1-j]): y = x*y % N return y Example 4: Using built-in Sage functionality for CRT. Sage has built in functions to perform the Chinese Remainder Theorem. There are several functions that produce a wide array of CRT functionality. The simplest function performs the CRT with two modulii. Specifically CRT (or the lowercase crt) when called as: crt(a,b,m,n) will return a number that is simultaneously congruent to a mod m and b mod n. All parameters are assumed to be Integers and the parameters m, n must be relatively prime. Some examples of this function are: sage: CRT(8, 16, 17, 49) -3120 sage: CRT(1,2,5,7) 16 sage: CRT(50,64,101,127) -62166 If you want to perform the CRT with a list of residues and moduli, Sage includes the function CRT_list.

684

APPENDIX B / SAGE EXAMPLES

CRT_list(v, modulii) requires that v and modulii be lists of Integers of the same length. Furthermore, the elements of modulii must be relatively prime. Then the output is an integer that reduces to v[i] mod modulii[i] (for i in range(len(v))). For example, the last call to CRT would have been sage: CRT_list([50,64],[101,127]) 1969 Note that this answer is different. However, you can check that both answers satisfy the requirements of the CRT. Here are examples with longer lists: sage: CRT_list([8, 20, 13], [49, 101, 127]) 608343 sage: CRT_list([10,11,12,13,14],[29,31,37,41,43]) 36657170 The function CRT_basis can be used to precompute the values associated to the given set of modulii. If modulii is a list of relatively prime modulii, then CRT_basis(modulii) returns a list a. This list a is such that if x is a list of residues of the modulii, then the output of the CRT can be found by summing: a[0]*x[0] + a[1]*x[1] + ... + a[len(a)-1]*x[len(a)-1] In the case of the modulii used in the last call to CRT_list this function returns as follows: sage: CRT_basis([29,31,37,41,43]) [32354576, 20808689, 23774055, 17163708, 23184311] The last CRT function that Sage provides is CRT_vectors. This function performs CRT_list on several different lists (with the same set of modulii) and returns a list of the simultaneous answers. It is efficient in that it uses CRT_basis and does not recompute those values for each list. For example: sage: CRT_vectors([[1,10],[2,11],[3,12],[4,13],[5,14]], [29,31,37,41,43]) [36657161, 36657170] Example 5: Using built-in Sage functionality for Modular Exponentiation. Sage can perform modular exponentiation using fast algorithms (like square and multiply) and without allowing the intermediate computations to become huge. This is done through IntegerModRing objects. Specifically, creating an IntegerModRing object indicates that arithmetic should be done with a modulus. Then you cast your integers in this ring to indicate that all arithmetic should be done with the modulus. Then for elements of this ring, exponentiation is done efficiently. For example: sage: R = IntegerModRing(101)

B.8 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

685

sage: x = R(10) sage: x^99 91 sage: R = IntegerModRing(1024) sage: x = R(111) sage: x^345 751 sage: x = R(100) sage: x^200 0 sage: sage: sage: sage: 9177

N = 127*101 R = IntegerModRing(N) x = R(54) x^95

Creating an IntegerModRing is similar to creating a FiniteField with GF(...) except that the modulus can be a general composite. Example 6: Using built-in Sage functionality for Euler’s totient. Sage has the Euler totient functionality built in. The function is called euler_phi because of the convention of using the Greek letter phi to represent this function. The operation of this function is simple. Just call euler_phi on an integer and it computes the totient function. This function factors the input, and hence requires exponential time. sage: euler_phi(101) 100 sage: euler_phi(1024) 512 sage: euler_phi(333) 216 sage: euler_phi(125) 100 sage: euler_phi(423) 276

B.8 CHAPTER 9: PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA Example 1: Using Sage we can simulate an RSA encryption and decryption. sage: # randomly select some prime numbers sage: p = random_prime(1000); p 191

686

APPENDIX B / SAGE EXAMPLES

sage: 601 sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: 1 sage: sage: sage: sage: 60353 sage: digit sage: 97 sage: sage: 46685 sage: sage: 97 sage: 46 sage: sage: 75843 sage: sage: 46 sage: 3 sage: sage: 288 sage: sage: 3

q = random_prime(1000); q # compute the modulus N = p*q R = IntegerModRing(N) phi_N = (p-1)*(q-1) # we can choose the encrypt key to be anything # relatively prime to phi_N e = 17 gcd(d, phi_N) # the decrypt key is the multiplicative inverse # of d mod phi_N d = xgcd(d, phi_N)[1] % phi_N d # Now we will encrypt/decrypt some random 7 numbers P = randint(1,127); P # encrypt C = R(P)^e; C # decrypt R(C)^d P = randint(1,127); P # encrypt C = R(P)^e; C # decrypt R(C)^d P = randint(1,127); P # encrypt C = R(P)^e; C # decrypt R(C)^d

Also, Sage can just as easily do much larger numbers: sage: p = random_prime(1000000000); p

B.8 / PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA

687

114750751 sage: q = random_prime(1000000000); q 8916569 sage: N = p*q sage: R = IntegerModRing(N) sage: phi_N = (p-1)*(q-1) sage: e = 2^16 + 1 sage: d = xgcd(e, phi_N)[1] % phi_N sage: d 237150735093473 sage: P = randint(1,1000000); P 955802 sage: C = R(P)^e sage: R(C)^d 955802 Example 2: In Sage, we can also see an example of RSA signing/verifying. sage: 1601 sage: 4073 sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: 1 sage: sage: sage: sage:

p = random_prime(10000); p q = random_prime(10000); q N = p*q R = IntegerModRing(N) phi_N = (p-1)*(q-1) e = 47 gcd(e, phi_N) d # # #

= xgcd(e,phi_N)[1] % phi_N Now by exponentiating with the private key we are effectively signing the data a few examples of this

sage: to_sign = randint(2,2^10); to_sign 650 sage: # the signature is checked by exponentiating sage: # and checking vs the to_sign value sage: signed = R(to_sign)^d; signed 2910116 sage: to_sign == signed^e True sage: to_sign = randint(2,2^10); to_sign 362 sage: signed = R(to_sign)^d; signed 546132 sage: to_sign == signed^e True

688

APPENDIX B / SAGE EXAMPLES

sage: # we can also see what happens if we try to verify a bad signature sage: to_sign = randint(2,2^10); to_sign 605 sage: signed = R(to_sign)^d; signed 1967793 sage: bad_signature = signed - randint(2,100) sage: to_sign == bad_signature^e False

B.9 CHAPTER 10: OTHER PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS Example 1: Here is an example of Alice and Bob performing a Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange done in Sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: 571 sage: sage: 591 sage: sage: 356 sage: sage: 199 sage: sage: 563 sage: sage: 563 sage:

# p F g # x

Alice and Bob agree on the domain parameters: = 619 = GF(p) = F(2) Alice picks a random value x in 1...618 = randint(1,618); x

# Alice computes X = g^x and sends this to Bob X = g^571; X # Bob picks a random value y in 1...618 y = randint(1,618);y # Bob computes Y = g^y and sends this to Alice Y = g^y; Y # Alice computes Y^x Y^x # Bob computes X^y X^y # Alice and Bob now share a secret value

Example 2: In reality to prevent what is known as small subgroup attacks, the prime p is chosen so that p - 2q + 1 where p is a prime as well. sage: q = 761 sage: p = 2*q + 1 sage: is_prime(q) True

B.9 / OTHER PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

sage: True sage: sage: sage: 1 sage: sage: sage: 312 sage: sage: 26 sage: sage: 24 sage: sage: 1304 sage: sage: 541 sage: sage: 541 sage:

689

is_prime(p) F = GF(p) g = F(3) g^q # note that g^q = 1 implies g is of order q # Alice picks a random value x in 2...q-1 x = randint(2,q-1); x # Alice computes X = g^x and sends it to Bob X = g^x; X # Bob computes a random value y in 2...q-1 y = randint(2,q-1); y # Bob computes Y = g^y and sends it to Alice Y = g^y; Y # Alice computes Y^x Y^x # Bob computes X^y X^y # Alice and Bob now share the secret value 541

Example 3: Sage has a significant amount of support for elliptic curves. This functionality can be very useful when learning, because it allows you to easily calculate things and get the big picture. Doing the examples by hand may cause you to get mired in the details. First you instantiate an elliptic curve, by specifying the field that it is over, and the coefficients of the defining Weierstrass equation. For this purpose, we write the Weierstrass equation as y2 + a1xy + a3y = x3 + a2x2 + a4x + a6

Then the Sage function EllipticCurve(R, [a1, a2, a3, a4, a6]) creates the elliptic curve over the ring R. sage: E = EllipticCurve(GF(17), [1,2,3,4,5]) sage: E Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 + x*y + 3*y = x^3 + 2*x^2 + 4*x + 5 over Finite Field of size 17 sage: E = EllipticCurve(GF(29), [0,0,0,1,1]) sage: E Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + x + 1 over Finite Field of size 29

690

APPENDIX B / SAGE EXAMPLES

sage: E = EllipticCurve(GF(127), [0,0,0,2,17]) sage: E Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 = x^3 + 2*x + 17 over Finite Field of size 127 sage: F. = GF(2^10) sage: E = EllipticCurve(F, [1,0,0,1,0]) sage: E Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 + x*y = x^3 + x over Finite Field in theta of size 2^10 Example 4: Koblitz curves. A Koblitz curve is an elliptic curve over a binary field defined by an equation of the form y2 + xy = x3 + ax2 + 1

where a = 0 or 1. FIPS 186-3 recommends a number of Koblitz curves for use with the Digital Signature Standard (DSS). Here we give an example of a curve of similar form to the Koblitz curves: sage: F. = GF(2^17) sage: E = EllipticCurve(F,[1,0,0,theta,1]) sage: E Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 + y = x^3 + theta* x^2 = 1 over Finite Field in theta of size 2^17 Example 5: Sage can even easily instantiate curves of cryptographic sizes, like K163, which is one of the FIPS 186-3 curves. sage: F. = GF(2^163) sage: E = EllipticCurve(F, [1,0,0,1,1]) sage: E Elliptic Curve defined by y^2 + x*y = x^3 + x^2 + 1 over Finite Field in theta of size 2^163 However, you should be careful that when instantiating a curve of cryptographic sizes, some of the functions on the curve object will not work because they require exponential time to run. While you can compute some things with these objects, it is best to leave your experimentation to the smaller sized curves. You can calculate some values of the curve, such as the number of points: sage: E = EllipticCurve(GF(107), [0,0,0,1,0]) sage: E.order() 108 You can also determine the generators of a curve: sage: E = EllipticCurve(GF(101), [0,0,0,1,0]) sage: E.gens() ((7 : 42 : 1), (36 : 38 : 1))

B.9 / OTHER PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

691

Note that this output is printed (x : y: z). This is a minor technical consideration because Sage stores points in what is known as “projective coordinates.” The precise meaning is not important, because for non-infinite points the value z will always be 1 and the first two values in a coordinate will be the x and y coordinates, exactly as you would expect.This representation is useful because it allows the point at infinity to be specified as a point with the z coordinate equal to 0: sage: E(0) (0 : 1 : 0) This shows how you can recognize a point at infinity as well as specify it. If you want to get the x and y coordinates out of a point on the curve, you can do so as follows: sage: P = E.random_point(); P (62 : 38 : 1) sage: (x,y) = P.xy(); (x,y) (62, 38) You can specify a point on the curve by casting an ordered pair to the curve as: sage: P = E((62,-38)); P (62 : 63 : 1) Now that you can find the generators on a curve and specify points you can experiment with these points and do arithmetic as well. Continuing to use E as the curve instantiated in the previous example, we can set G1 and G2 to the generators: sage: (G1, G2) = E.gens() sage: P = E.random_point(); P (49 : 29 : 1) You can compute the sum of two points as in the following examples: sage: (69 : sage: (40 : sage: (84 :

G1 + G2 + P 96 : 1) G1 + P 62 : 1) P + P + G2 25 : 1)

You can compute the inverse of a point using the unary minus (–) operator: sage: -P (49 : 72 : 1) sage: -G1 (7 : 59 : 1) You can also compute repeated point addition (adding a point to itself many times) with the * operator: sage: 13*G1

692

APPENDIX B / SAGE EXAMPLES

(72 : 23 : 1) sage: 2*G2 (9 : 58 : 1) sage: 88*P (87 : 75 : 1) And for curves over small finite fields you can also compute the order (discrete log of the point at infinity with respect to that point). sage: G1.order() 10 sage: G2.order() 10 sage: P.order() 10

Example 6: Using the Sage elliptic curve functionality to perform a simulated elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDH) key exchange. sage: sage: sage: sage: (94 : sage: 122 sage: q-1 sage: 33 sage: sage: (55 :

# F E G 6 q

calculate domain parameters = GF(127) = EllipticCurve(F, [0, 0, 0, 3, 4]) = E.gen(0); G : 1) = E.order(); q

# Alice computes a secret value x in 2... x = randint(2,q-1); x # Alice computes a public value X = x*G X = x*G; X 89 : 1)

sage: sage: 55 sage: sage: (84 :

# Bob computes a secret value y in 2...q-1 y = randint(2,q-1); y # Bob computes a public value Y = y*G Y = y*G; Y 39 : 1)

sage: sage: (91 : sage: sage: (91 :

# Alice computes the shared value x*Y 105 : 1) # Bob computes the shared value y*X 105 : 1)

B.10 / CRYPTOGRAPHIC HASH FUNCTIONS

693

However, in practice most curves that are used have a prime order: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: (23 : sage: sage: (23 :

# Calculate the domain parameters F = GF(101) E = EllipticCurve(F, [0, 0, 0, 25, 7]) G = E((97,34)) q = E.order() # Alice computes a secret values x in 2...q-1 x = randint(2,q-1) # Alice computes a public value X = x*G X = x*G # Bob computes a secret value y in 2...q-1 y = randint(2,q-1) # Bob computes a public value Y = y*G Y = y*G # Alice computes the shared secret value x*Y 15 : 1) # Bob computes the shared secret value y*X 15 : 1)

B.10 CHAPTER 11: CRYPTOGRAPHIC HASH FUNCTIONS Example 1: The following is an example of the MASH hash function in Sage. MASH is a function based on the use of modular arithmetic. It involves use of an RSA-like modulus M, whose bit length affects the security. M should be difficult to factor, and for M of unknown factorization, the security is based in part on the difficulty of extracting modular roots. M also determines the block size for processing messages. In essence, MASH is defined as: Hi = ((xi { Hi - 1)2OR Hi - 1) (mod M)

where A = 0xFF00...00 Hi - 1 = the largest prime less than M xi = the ith digit of the base M expansion of input n. That is, we express n as a number of base M. Thus: n = x0 + x1M + x2M2 + Á

The following is an example of the MASH hash function in Sage # # This function generates a mash modulus # takes a bit length, and returns a Mash # modulus l or l-1 bits long (if n is odd)

694

APPENDIX B / SAGE EXAMPLES

# returns p, q, and the product N # def generate_mash_modulus(l): m = l.quo_rem(2)[0] p = 1 while (p < 2^(m-1)): p = random_prime(2^m) q = 1 while (q < 2^(m-1)): q = random_prime(2^m) N = p*q return (N, p, q) # # Mash Hash # the value n is the data to be hashed. # the value N is the modulus # Returns the hash value. # def MASH(n, N): H = previous_prime(N) q = n while (0 != q): (q, a) = q.quo_rem(N) H = ((H+a)^2 + H) % N return H The output of these functions running; sage: data = ZZ(randint(1,2^1000)) sage: (N, p, q) = generate_mash_modulus(20) sage: MASH(data, N) 220874 sage: (N, p, q) = generate_mash_modulus(50) sage: MASH(data, N) 455794413217080 sage: (N, p, q) = generate_mash_modulus(100) sage: MASH(data, N) 268864504538508517754648285037 sage: data = ZZ(randint(1,2^1000)) sage: MASH(data, N) 236862581074736881919296071248

B.11 / DIGITAL SIGNATURES

695

sage: data = ZZ(randint(1,2^1000)) sage: MASH(data, N) 395463068716770866931052945515

B.11 CHAPTER 13: DIGITAL SIGNATURES Example 1: Using Sage, we can perform a DSA sign and verify: sage: # First we generate the domain parameters sage: # Generate a 16 bit prime q sage: q = 1; sage: while (q < 2^15): q = random_prime(2^16) ....: sage: q 42697 sage: # Generate a 64 bit p, such that q divides (p-1) sage: p = 1 sage: while (not is_prime(p)): ....: p = (2^48 + randint(1,2^46)*2)*q + 1 ....: sage: p 12797003281321319017 sage: # Generate h and g sage: h = randint(2,p-2) sage: h 5751574539220326847 sage: F = GF(p) sage: g = F(h)^((p-1)/q) sage: g 9670562682258945855 sage: # Generate a user public / private key sage: # private key sage: x = randint(2,q-1) sage: x 20499 sage: # public key sage: y = F(g)^x sage: y 7955052828197610751 sage: # Sign and verify a random value sage: H = randint(2,p-1) sage: # Signing sage: # random blinding value

696

APPENDIX B / SAGE EXAMPLES

sage: sage: sage: sage: sage: 6805 sage: sage: sage: 26026

k r r r r

= = = =

randint(2,q-1) F(g)^k % q F(g)^k r.lift() % q

sage: sage: 12250 sage: 6694 sage: 16706 sage: sage: sage: 6805 sage: True

# Verifying w = xgcd(s,q)[1]; w

kinv = xgcd(k,q)[1] % q s = kinv*(H + x*r) % q s

u1 = H*w % q; u1 u2 = r*w % q; u2 v = F(g)^u1 * F(y)^u2 v = v.lift() % q v v == r

sage: # Sign and verify another random value sage: H = randint(2,p-1) sage: sage: sage: sage: 3284 sage: sage: sage: 2330

k = randint(2,q-1) r = F(g)^k r = r.lift() % q r

sage: sage: 4343 sage: 32191 sage: 1614 sage: sage: sage:

# Verifying w = xgcd(s,q)[1]; w

kinv = xgcd(k,q)[1] % q s = kinv*(H + x*r) % q s

u1 = H*w % q; u1 u2 = r*w % q; u2 v = F(g)^u1 * F(y)^u2 v = v.lift() % q v

B.11 / DIGITAL SIGNATURES

697

3284 sage: v == r True Example 2: The following functions implement DSA domain parameter generation, key generation, and DSA Signing: # # Generates a 16 bit q and 64 bit p, both prime # such that q divides p-1 # def DSA_generate_domain_parameters(): g = 1 while (1 == g): # first find a q q = 1 while (q < 2^15): q = random_prime(2^16) # next find a p p = 1 while (not is_prime(p)): p = (2^47 + randint(1,2^45)*2)*q + 1 F = GF(p) h = randint(2,p-1) g = (F(h)^((p-1)/q)).lift() return (p, q, g) # # Generates a users private and public key # given domain parameters p, q, and g # def DSA_generate_keypair(p, q, g): x = randint(2,q-1) F = GF(p) y = F(g)^x y = y.lift() return (x,y) # # # # # #

Given domain parameters p, q and g as well as a secret key x and a hash value H this performs the DSA signing algorithm

698

APPENDIX B / SAGE EXAMPLES

def DSA_sign(p, q, g, x, H): k = randint(2,q-1) F = GF(p) r = F(g)^k r = r.lift() % q kinv = xgcd(k,q)[1] % q s = kinv*(H + x*r) % q return (r, s)

REFERENCES In matters of this kind everyone feels he is justified in writing and publishing the first thing that comes into his head when he picks up a pen, and thinks his own idea as axiomatic as the fact that two and two make four. If critics would go to the trouble of thinking about the subject for years on end and testing each conclusion against the actual history of war, as I have done, they would undoubtedly be more careful of what they wrote. —On War Carl von Clausewitz ABBREVIATIONS ACM Association for Computing Machinery IBM International Business Machines Corporation IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ACM04 ADAM90 AGRA02 ANDR04 AKL83 ALVA90 ANDE80 ANDE93 ANTE06 ASHL01 AUDI04 AXEL00 AYCO06 BACE00 BARK91 BARK07a BARK07b BARK07c BARK08 BARR05

The Association for Computing Machinery. USACM Policy Brief: Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). February 6, 2004. acm.org/usacm/Issues/DMCA.htm Adams, C., and Tavares, S. “Generating and Counting Binary Bent Sequences.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 1990. Agrawal, M.; Keyal, N.; and Saxena, N. “PRIMES is in P.” IIT Kanpur, Preprint, August 2002. http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/news/primality.pdf. Andrews, M., and Whittaker, J. “Computer Security.” IEEE Security and Privacy, September/October 2004. Akl, S. “Digital Signatures: A Tutorial Survey.” Computer, February 1983. Alvare, A. “How Crackers Crack Passwords or What Passwords to Avoid.” Proceedings, UNIX Security Workshop II, August 1990. Anderson, J. Computer Security Threat Monitoring and Surveillance. Fort Washington, PA: James P. Anderson Co., April 1980. Anderson, R., et al. “Using the New ACM Code of Ethics in Decision Making.” Communications of the ACM, February 1993. Ante, S., and Grow, B. “Meet the Hackers.” Business Week, May 29, 2006. Ashley, P.; Hinton, H.; and Vandenwauver, M. “Wired versus Wireless Security: The Internet, WAP and iMode for E-Commerce.” Proceedings, Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, 2001. Audin, G. “Next-Gen Firewalls: What to Expect.” Business Communications Review, June 2004. Axelsson, S. “The Base-Rate Fallacy and the Difficulty of Intrusion Detection.” ACM Transactions and Information and System Security, August 2000. Aycock, J. Computer Viruses and Malware. New York: Springer, 2006. Bace, R. Intrusion Detection. Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan Technical Publishing, 2000. Barker, W. Introduction to the Analysis of the Data Encryption Standard (DES). Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1991. Barker, E., and Kelsey, J. Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators. NIST SP 800-90, March 2007. Barker, E., et al. Recommendation for Key Management — Part 1: General. NIST SP800-57, March 2007. Barker, E., et al. Recommendation for Key Management — Part 2: Best Practices for Key Management Organization. NIST SP800-57, March 2007. Barker, E., et al. Recommendation for Key Management — Part 3: Specific Key Management Guidance. NIST SP800-57, August 2008. Barrett, D.; Silverman, R.; and Byrnes, R. SSH The Secure Shell: The Definitive Guide. Sebastopol, CA; O’Reilly, 2005.

699

700

REFERENCES

BAUE88 BELL90 BELL94a BELL94b BELL96a BELL96b BELL97 BELL00 BERL84 BETH91 BHAT03 BHAT07 BIHA93 BLAC00 BLAC05 BLAK99 BLOO70 BLUM86 BONE99 BONE02 BORN03 BRAU01 BRIG79 BROW07 BRYA88 BURN97

Bauer, D., and Koblentz, M. “NIDX—An Expert System for Real-Time Network Intrusion Detection.” Proceedings, Computer Networking Symposium, April 1988. Bellovin, S., and Merritt, M. “Limitations of the Kerberos Authentication System.” Computer Communications Review, October 1990. Bellare, M, and Rogaway, P. “Optimal Asymmetric Encryption — How to Encrypt with RSA.” Proceedings, Eurocrypt ’94, 1994. Bellovin, S., and Cheswick, W. “Network Firewalls.” IEEE Communications Magazine, September 1994. Bellare, M.; Canetti, R.; and Krawczyk, H. “Keying Hash Functions for Message Authentication.” Proceedings, CRYPTO ’96, August 1996; published by SpringerVerlag. An expanded version is available at http://www-cse.ucsd.edu/users/mihir. Bellare, M.; Canetti, R.; and Krawczyk, H. “The HMAC Construction.” CryptoBytes, Spring 1996. Bellare, M., and Rogaway, P. “Collision-Resistant Hashing: Towards Making UOWHF’s Practical.” Proceedings, CRYPTO ’97, 1997; published by Springer-Verlag. Bellare, M.; Kilian, J.; and Rogaway, P. “The Security of the Cipher Block Chaining Message Authentication Code.” Journal of Computer and System Sciences, December 2000. Berlekamp, E. Algebraic Coding Theory. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1984. Beth, T.; Frisch, M.; and Simmons, G. eds. Public-Key Cryptography: State of the Art and Future Directions. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1991. Bhatkar, S.; DuVarney, D.; and Sekar, R. “Address Obfuscation: An Efficient Approach to Combat a Broad Range of Memory Error Exploits.” Proceedings, 12th Unix Security Symposium, 2003. Bhatti, R.; Bertino, E.; and Ghafoor, A. “An Integrated Approach to Federated Identity and Privilege Management in Open Systems.” Communications of the ACM, February 2007. Biham, E., and Shamir, A. Differential Cryptanalysis of the Data Encryption Standard. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993. Black, J., and Rogaway, P.; and Shrimpton, T. “ CBC MACs for Arbitrary-Length Messages: The Three-Key Constructions.” Advances in Cryptology – CRYPTO ’00, 2000. Black, J. “Authenticated Encryption.” Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security, Springer, 2005. Blake, I.; Seroussi, G.; and Smart, N. Elliptic Curves in Cryptography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Bloom, B. “Space/time Trade-offs in Hash Coding with Allowable Errors.” Communications of the ACM, July 1970. Blum, L.; Blum, M.; and Shub, M. “A Simple Unpredictable Pseudo-Random Number Generator.” SIAM Journal on Computing, No. 2, 1986. Boneh, D. “Twenty Years of Attacks on the RSA Cryptosystem.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society, February 1999. Boneh, D., and Shacham, H. “Fast Variants of RSA.” CryptoBytes, Winter/Spring 2002. http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs. Bornemann, F. “PRIMES is in P: A Breakthrough for Everyman.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society, May 2003. Braunfeld, R., and Wells, T. “Protecting Your Most Valuable Asset: Intellectual Property.” IT Pro, March/April 2000. Bright, H., and Enison, R. “Quasi-Random Number Sequences from Long-Period TLP Generator with Remarks on Application to Cryptography.” Computing Surveys, December 1979. Brown, D., an d Gjosteen, K. “ A Security Analysis of the NIST SP 800-90 Elliptic Curve Random Number Generator.” Proceedings, Crypto 07, 2007. Bryant, W. Designing an Authentication System: A Dialogue in Four Scenes. Project Athena document, February 1988. Available at http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/www/ dialogue.html. Burn, R. A Pathway to Number Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

REFERENCES BURR08 BROW72 CAMP92 CAMP03 CASS01 CERT01 CHAN02 CHAP00 CHAP06 CHEN98 CHEN04 CHEN05 CHES97 CHES03 CHIN05 COCK73 COHE94 COMP06 CONR02 COPP94 CORM04 COST05 CRAN01 CROC09 CYMR06 DAEM99 DAEM01 DAEM02 DAMG89 DAVI89 DAVI93

701

Burr, W. “A New Hash Competition.” IEEE Security & Privacy, May/June 2008. Browne, P. “Computer Security — A Survey.” ACM SIGMIS Database, Fall 1972. Campbell, K., and Wiener, M. “Proof that DES is not a Group.” Proceedings, Crypto ’92, 1992; published by Springer-Verlag. Camp, L. “ First Principles of Copyright for DRM Design.” IEEE Internet Computing, May/June 2003. Cass, S. “Anatomy of Malice.” IEEE Spectrum, November 2001. CERT Coordination Center. “Denial of Service Attacks.” June 2001. http://www.cert.org/ tech_tips/denial_of_service.html Chang, R. “Defending Against Flooding-Based Distributed Denial-of-Service Attacks: A Tutorial.” IEEE Communications Magazine, October 2002. Chapman, D., and Zwicky, E. Building Internet Firewalls. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2000. Chapman, C. “Fundamental Ethics in Information Systems.” Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006. Cheng, P., et al. “A Security Architecture for the Internet Protocol.” IBM Systems Journal, Number 1, 1998. Chen, S., and Tang, T. “Slowing Down Internet Worms,” Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, 2004. Chen, J.; Jiang, M.; and Liu, Y. “Wireless LAN Security and IEEE 802.11i.” IEEE Wireless Communications, February 2005. Chess, D. “The Future of Viruses on the Internet.” Proceedings, Virus Bulletin International Conference, October 1997. Cheswick, W., and Bellovin, S. Firewalls and Internet Security: Repelling the Wily Hacker. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2003. Chinchani, R., and Berg, E. “A Fast Static Analysis Approach to Detect Exploit Code Inside Network Flows.” Recent Advances in Intrusion Detection, 8th International Symposium, 2005. Cocks, C. A Note on Non-Secret Encryption. CESG Report, November 1973. Cohen, F. A Short Course on Computer Viruses. New York: Wiley, 1994. Computer Associates International. The Business Value of Identity Federation. White Paper, January 2006. Conry-Murray, A. “Behavior-Blocking Stops Unknown Malicious Code.” Network Magazine, June 2002. Coppersmith, D. “The Data Encryption Standard (DES) and Its Strength Against Attacks.” IBM Journal of Research and Development, May 1994. Cormen, T.; Leiserson, C.; Rivest, R.; and Stein, C. Introduction to Algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004. Costa, M., et al. “Vigilante: End-to-end Containment of Internet Worms.” ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles. 2005. Crandall, R., and Pomerance, C. Prime Numbers: A Computational Perspective. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2001. Crocker, D. Internet Mail Architecture. Internet draft draft-crocker-email-arch-13, May 15, 2009. Team Cymru, “Cybercrime: An Epidemic.” ACM Queue, November 2006. Daemen, J., and Rijmen, V. AES Proposal: Rijndael, Version 2. Submission to NIST, March 1999. http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/aes. Daemen, J., and Rijmen, V. “Rijndael: The Advanced Encryption Standard.” Dr. Dobb’s Journal, March 2001. Daemen, J., and Rijmen, V. The Design of Rijndael: The Wide Trail Strategy Explained. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2002. Damgard, I. “A Design Principle for Hash Functions.” Proceedings, CRYPTO ’89, 1989; published by Springer-Verlag. Davies, D., and Price, W. Security for Computer Networks. New York: Wiley, 1989. Davies, C., and Ganesan, R. “BApasswd: A New Proactive Password Checker.” Proceedings, 16th National Computer Security Conference, September 1993.

702

REFERENCES

DAWS96 DENN81 DENN82 DENN87 DESK92 DIFF76a DIFF76b DIFF77 DIFF79 DIFF88 DOBB96 DOJ00 EAST05 EFF98 ELGA84 ELGA85 ELLI70 ELLI99 ENGE80 ENGE99 FEIS73 FEIS75 FERN99 FLUH00 FLUH01 FORR97 FRAN05 FRAN07 FRAN09 FRAS97 FUMY93 GARD72

Dawson, E., and Nielsen, L. “Automated Cryptoanalysis of XOR Plaintext Strings.” Cryptologia, April 1996. Denning, D. “Timestamps in Key Distribution Protocols.” Communications of the ACM, August 1981. Denning, D. Cryptography and Data Security. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1982. Denning, D. “An Intrusion-Detection Model.” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, February 1987. Deskins, W. Abstract Algebra. New York: Dover, 1992. Diffie, W., and Hellman, M. “New Directions in Cryptography.” Proceedings of the AFIPS National Computer Conference, June 1976. Diffie, W., and Hellman, M. “Multiuser Cryptographic Techniques.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, November 1976. Diffie, W., and Hellman, M. “Exhaustive Cryptanalysis of the NBS Data Encryption Standard.” Computer, June 1977. Diffie, W., and Hellman, M. “Privacy and Authentication: An Introduction to Cryptography.” Proceedings of the IEEE, March 1979. Diffie, W. “The First Ten Years of Public-Key Cryptography.” Proceedings of the IEEE, May 1988. Dobbertin, H. “The Status of MD5 After a Recent Attack.” CryptoBytes, Summer 1996. U.S. Department of Justice. The Electronic Frontier: The Challenge of Unlawful Conduct Involving the Use of the Internet. March 2000. usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ unlawful.htm Eastlake, D.’ Schiller, J.; and Crocker, S. Randomness Requirements for Security. RFC 4086, June 2005. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Cracking DES: Secrets of Encryption Research, Wiretap Politics, and Chip Design. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 1998. Elgamal, T. A Public Key Cryptosystem and a Signature Scheme Based on Discrete Logarithms.” Proceedings, Crypto 84, 1984. Elgamal, T. A Public Key Cryptosystem and a Signature Scheme Based on Discrete Logarithms.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, July 1985. Ellis, J. The Possibility of Secure Non-Secret Digital Encryption. CESG Report, January 1970. Ellis, J. “The History of Non-Secret Encryption.” Cryptologia, July 1999. Enger, N., and Howerton, P. Computer Security. New York: Amacom, 1980. Enge, A. Elliptic Curves and Their Applications to Cryptography. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999. Feistel, H. “Cryptography and Computer Privacy.” Scientific American, May 1973. Feistel, H.; Notz, W.; and Smith, J. “Some Cryptographic Techniques for Machineto-Machine Data Communications.” Proceedings of the IEEE, November 1975. Fernandes, A. “Elliptic Curve Cryptography.” Dr. Dobb’s Journal, December 1999. Fluhrer, S., and McGrew, D. “Statistical Analysis of the Alleged RC4 Key Stream Generator.” Proceedings, Fast Software Encryption 2000, 2000. Fluhrer, S.; Mantin, I.; and Shamir, A. “Weakness in the Key Scheduling Algorithm of RC4.” Proceedings, Workshop in Selected Areas of Cryptography,2001. Forrest, S.; Hofmeyr, S.; and Somayaji, A. “Computer Immunology.” Communications of the ACM, October 1997. Frankel, S., et al. Guide to IPsec VPNs. NIST SP 800-77, 2005. Frankel, S.; Eydt, B.; Owens, L.; and Scarfone, K. Establishing Wireless Robust Security Networks: A Guide to IEEE 802.11i. NIST Special Publication SP 800-97, February 2007. Frankel, S., and Krishnan, S. IP Security (IPsec) and Internet Key Exchange (IKE) Document Roadmap. draft-ietf-ipsecme-roadmap-01.txt, March 6, 2009. Fraser, B. Site Security Handbook. RFC 2196, September 1997. Fumy, S., and Landrock, P. “Principles of Key Management.” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, June 1993. Gardner, M. Codes, Ciphers, and Secret Writing. New York: Dover, 1972.

REFERENCES GARD77 GARF02 GARR01 GAUD00 GIBB00 GILB03 GOLD88 GONG92 GONG93 GOTT99 GRAH94 GRAN04 GUTM02 GUTT06 HAMM91 HANK04 HARR90 HEBE92 HEGL06 HELD96 HELL79 HEVI99 HERS75 HEYS95 HEYS02 HONE01 HORO71 HUIT98 HYPP06 IANN06

703

Gardner, M. “A New Kind of Cipher That Would Take Millions of Years to Break.” Scientific American, August 1977. Garfinkel, S., and Spafford, G. Web Security, Privacy & Commerce. Sebastapol, CA: O’Reilly, 2002. Garrett, P. Making, Breaking Codes: An Introduction to Cryptology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. Gaudin, S. “The Omega Files.” Network World, June 26, 2000. Gibbs, J. “The Digital Millennium Copyright Act.” ACM Ubiquity, August 2000. Gilbert, H. and Handschuh, H. “Security Analysis of SHA-256 and Sisters.” “Proceedings, CRYPTO ’03, 2003; published by Springer-Verlag. Goldwasser, S.; Micali, S.; and Rivest, R. “A Digital Signature Scheme Secure Against Adaptive Chosen-Message Attacks.” SIAM Journal on Computing, April 1988. Gong, L. “A Security Risk of Depending on Synchronized Clocks.” Operating Systems Review, January 1992. Gong, L. “Variations on the Themes of Message Freshness and Replay.” Proceedings, IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop, June 1993. Gotterbarn, D. “ How the New Software Engineering Code of Ethics Affects You.” IEEE Software, November/ December 1999. Graham, R.; Knuth, D.; and Patashnik, O. Concrete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994. Grance, T.; Kent, K.; and Kim, B. Computer Security Incident Handling Guide. NIST Special Publication SP 800-61, January 2004. Gutmann, P. “PKI: It’s Not Dead, Just Resting.” Computer, August 2002. Gutterman, Z.; Pinkas, B.; and Reinman, T. “ Analysis of the Linux Random Number Generator.” Proceedings, 2006 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2006. Hamming, R. The Art of Probability for Scientists and Engineers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1991. Hankerson, D.; Menezes, A.; and Vanstone, S. Guide to Elliptic Curve Cryptography. New York: Springer, 2004. Harrington, S., and McCollum, R. “Lessons from Corporate America Applied to Training in Computer Ethics.” Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computers and the Quality of Life (SIGCAS and SIGCAPH), September 1990. Heberlein, L.; Mukherjee, B.; and Levitt, K. “Internetwork Security Monitor: An Intrusion-Detection System for Large-Scale Networks.” Proceedings, 15th National Computer Security Conference, October 1992. Hegland, A., et al. “A Survey of Key Management in Ad Hoc Networks.” IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials. 3rd Quarter 2006. Held, G. Data and Image Compression: Tools and Techniques. New York: Wiley, 1996. Hellman, M. “The Mathematics of Public-Key Cryptography.” Scientific American, August 1970. Hevia, A., and Kiwi, M. “Strength of Two Data Encryption Standard Implementations Under Timing Attacks.” ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, November 1999. Herstein, I. Topics in Algebra. New York: Wiley, 1975. Heys, H., and Tavares, S. “Avalanche Characteristics of Substitution-Permutation Encryption Networks.” IEEE Transactions on Computers, September 1995. Heys, H. “A Tutorial on Linear and Differential Cryptanalysis.” Cryptologia, July 2002. The Honeynet Project. Know Your Enemy: Revealing the Security Tools, Tactics, and Motives of the Blackhat Community. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2001. Horowitz, E. “Modular Arithmetic and Finite Field Theory: A Tutorial.” Proceedings of the Second ACM Symposium and Symbolic and Algebraic Manipulation, March 1971. Huitema, C. IPv6: The New Internet Protocol. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998. Hypponen, M. “Malware Goes Mobile.” Scientific American, November 2006. Iannella, R. “Digital Rights Management.” In Bidgoli, H., editor. Handbook of Information Security. New York: Wiley, 2006.

704

REFERENCES

IANS90 ILGU93 ISAT02 IWAT03 JAIN91 JAKO98 JANS01 JAVI91 JHI07 JOHN05 JONS02 JUDY09 JUEN85 JUEN87 JUN99 JUNG04 JURI97 KAHN96 KALI95 KALI96a KALI96b KATZ00 KEHN92 KELS98 KENT00 KEPH97a KEPH97b

I’Anson, C., and Mitchell, C. “Security Defects in CCITT Recommendation X.509–The Directory Authentication Framework” Computer Communications Review, April 1990. Ilgun, K. “USTAT: A Real-Time Intrusion Detection System for UNIX.” Proceedings, 1993 IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, May 1993. Information Science and Technology Study Group. “Security with Privacy,” DARPA Briefing on Security and Privacy, Dec. 2002. www.cs.berkeley.edu/~tygar/papers/ISATfinal-briefing.pdf Iwata, T., and Kurosawa, K. “OMAC: One-Key CBC MAC.” Proceedings, Fast Software Encryption, FSE ’03, 2003. Jain, R. The Art of Computer Systems Performance Analysis: Techniques for Experimental Design, Measurement, Simulation, and Modeling. New York: Wiley, 1991. Jakobsson, M.; Shriver, E.; Hillyer, B.; and Juels, A. “A practical secure physical random bit generator.” Proceedings of The Fifth ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, November 1998. Jansen, W. Guidelines on Active Content and Mobile Code. NIST Special Publication SP 800-28, October 2001. Javitz, H., and Valdes,A.“The SRI IDES Statistical Anomaly Detector.” Proceedings, 1991 IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, May 1991. Jhi, Y., and Liu, P. “PWC: A Proactive Worm Containment Solution for Enterprise Networks.” Third International Conference on Security and Privacy in Communications Networks, 2007. Johnson, D. “Hash Functions and Pseudorandomness.” Proceedings, First NIST Cryptographic Hash Workshop, 2005. Jonsson, J. “On the Security of CTR + CBC-MAC.” Proceedings of Selected Areas in Cryptography – SAC 2002. 2002. Judy, H.. et al. “Privacy in Cyberspace: U.S. and European Perspectives.” In Bosworth, S. et al., eds. Computer Security Handbook. New York: Wiley, 2009. Jueneman, R.; Matyas, S.; and Meyer, C. “Message Authentication.” IEEE Communications Magazine, September 1988. Jueneman, R. “Electronic Document Authentication.” IEEE Network Magazine, April 1987. Jun, B., and Kocher, P. The Intel Random Number Generator. Intel White Paper, April 22, 1999. Jung, J.; et al. “Fast Portscan Detection Using Sequential Hypothesis Testing,” Proceedings, IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2004. Jurisic, A., and Menezes, A. “Elliptic Curves and Cryptography.” Dr. Dobb’s Journal, April 1997. Kahn, D. The Codebreakers: The Story of Secret Writing. New York: Scribner, 1996. Kaliski, B., and Robshaw, M. “The Secure Use of RSA.” CryptoBytes, Autumn 1995. Kaliski, B., and Robshaw, M. “Multiple Encryption: Weighing Security and Performance.” Dr. Dobb’s Journal, January 1996. Kaliski, B. “Timing Attacks on Cryptosystems.” RSA Laboratories Bulletin, January 1996. http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs. Katzenbeisser, S., ed. Information Hiding Techniques for Steganography and Digital Watermarking. Boston: Artech House, 2000. Kehne, A.; Schonwalder, J.; and Langendorfer, H. “A Nonce-Based Protocol for Multiple Authentications.” Operating Systems Review, October 1992. Kelsey, J.; Schneier, B.; and Hall, C. “Cryptanalytic Attacks on Pseudorandom Number Generators.” Proceedings, Fast Software Encryption, 1998. http://www.schneier.com/ paper-prngs.html. Kent, S. “On the Trail of Intrusions into Information Systems.” IEEE Spectrum, December 2000. Kephart, J.; Sorkin, G.; Chess, D.; and White, S. “Fighting Computer Viruses.” Scientific American, November 1997. Kephart, J.; Sorkin, G.; Swimmer, B.; and White, S. “Blueprint for a Computer Immune System.” Proceedings, Virus Bulletin International Conference, October 1997.

REFERENCES KIRK06 KISS06 KLEI90 KNUD98 KNUT97 KNUT98 KOBL92 KOBL94 KOCH96 KOHL89 KOHL94

KONH81 KORN96 KSHE06 KUMA97 KUMA98 LAM92a LAM92b LAMP04 LAND04 LATT09 LEHM51 LEIB07 LEUT94 LEVE90 LEWA00 LEWI69 LIDL94 LINN06 LIPM00

705

Kirk, J. “Tricky New Malware Challenges Vendors.” Network World, October 30, 2006. Kissel, R., ed. Glossary of Key Information Security Terms. NIST IR 7298, 25 April 2006. Klein, D. “Foiling the Cracker: A Survey of, and Improvements to, Password Security.” Proceedings, UNIX Security Workshop II, August 1990. Knudsen, L., et al. “Analysis Method for Alleged RC4.” Proceedings, ASIACRYPT ’98, 1998. Knuth, D. The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 1: Fundamental Algorithms. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997. Knuth, D. The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 2: Seminumerical Algorithms. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1998. Koblas, D., and Koblas, M. “SOCKS.” Proceedings, UNIX Security Symposium III, September 1992. Koblitz, N. A Course in Number Theory and Cryptography. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994. Kocher, P. “Timing Attacks on Implementations of Diffie-Hellman, RSA, DSS, and Other Systems.” Proceedings, Crypto ’96, August 1996. Kohl, J. “The Use of Encryption in Kerberos for Network Authentication.” Proceedings, Crypto ’89, 1989; published by Springer-Verlag. Kohl, J.; Neuman, B.; and Ts’o, T. “The Evolution of the Kerberos Authentication Service.” in Brazier, F., and Johansen, D. Distributed Open Systems. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1994. Available at http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/www/ papers.html. Konheim, A. Cryptography: A Primer. New York: Wiley, 1981. Korner, T. The Pleasures of Counting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Kshetri, N. “The Simple Economics of Cybercrimes.” IEEE Security and Privacy, January/February 2006. Kumar, I. Cryptology. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1997. Kumanduri, R., and Romero, C. Number Theory with Computer Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998. Lam, K., and Gollmann, D. “Freshness Assurance of Authentication Protocols.” Proceedings, ESORICS 92, 1992; published by Springer-Verlag. Lam, K., and Beth, T. “Timely Authentication in Distributed Systems.” Proceedings, ESORICS 92, 1992; published by Springer-Verlag. Lampson, B. “Computer Security in the Real World.” Computer, June 2004. Landau, S. “Polynomials in the Nation’s Service: Using Algebra to Design the Advanced Encryption Standard.” American Mathematical Monthly, February 2004. Lattin, B. “Upgrade to Suite B Security Algorithms.” Network World, June 1, 2009. Lehmer, D. “Mathematical Methods in Large-Scale Computing.” Proceedings, 2nd Symposium on Large-Scale Digital Calculating Machinery, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951. Leiba, B., and Fenton, J. “DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM): Using Digital Signatures for Domain Verification.” Proceedings of Fourth Conference on Email and AntiSpam (CEAS 07), 2007. Leutwyler, K. “Superhack.” Scientific American, July 1994. Leveque, W. Elementary Theory of Numbers. New York: Dover, 1990. Lewand, R. Cryptological Mathematics. Washington, DC: Mathematical Association of America, 2000. Lewis, P.; Goodman, A.; and Miller, J. “A Pseudo-Random Number Generator for the System/360.” IBM Systems Journal, No. 2, 1969. Lidl, R., and Niederreiter, H. Introduction to Finite Fields and Their Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Linn, J. “Identity Management.” In Bidgoli, H., editor. Handbook of Information Security. New York: Wiley, 2006. Lipmaa, H.; Rogaway, P.; and Wagner, D. “CTR Mode Encryption.” NIST First Modes of Operation Workshop, October 2000. http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/modes.

706

REFERENCES

LISK02 LIU03 LODI98 LUNT88 MADS93 MANT01 MATS93 MCGR04 MCGR05 MCHU00 MEIN01 MENE97 MERK78a MERK78b MERK79 MERK81 MERK89 MEYE82 MEYE88 MICA91 MILL75 MILL88 MIRK04 MIST96 MITC92 MIYA90 MOOR01

Liskov, M.: Rivest, R.; and Wagner, D. “Tweakable Block Ciphers.” Advances in Cryptology—CRYPTO ’02. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2442, pp. 31–46. Springer-Verlag, 2002. Liu, Q.; Safavi-Naini, R.; and Sheppard, N. “Digital Rights Management for Content Distribution.” Proceedings, Australasian Information Security Workshop 2003 (AISW2003), 2003. Lodin, S., and Schuba, C. “Firewalls Fend Off Invasions from the Net.” IEEE Spectrum, February 1998. Lunt, T., and Jagannathan, R. “A Prototype Real-Time Intrusion-Detection Expert System.” Proceedings, 1988 IEEE Computer Society Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, April 1988. Madsen, J. “World Record in Password Checking.” Usenet, comp.security.misc newsgroup, August 18, 1993. Mantin, I., Shamir, A. “A Practical Attack on Broadcast RC4.” Proceedings, Fast Software Encryption, 2001. Matsui, M. “Linear Cryptanalysis Method for DES Cipher.” Proceedings, EUROCRYPT ’93, 1993; published by Springer-Verlag. McGrew, D., and Viega, J. “The Security and Performance of the Galois/Counter Mode (GCM) of Operation.” Proceedings, Indocrypt 2004. McGrew, D., and Viega, J. “ Flexible and Efficient Message Authentication in Hardware and Software.” 2005. http://www.cryptobarn.com/gcm/gcm-paper.pdf. McHugh, J.; Christie, A.; and Allen, J. “The Role of Intrusion Detection Systems.” IEEE Software, September/October 2000. Meinel, C. “Code Red for the Web.” Scientific American, October 2001. Menezes, A.; van Oorschot, P.; and Vanstone, S. Handbook of Applied Cryptography. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1997. Merkle, Ra. “Secure Communication Over an Insecure Channel.” Communications of the ACM, March 1978. Merkle, R., and Hellman, M. “Hiding Information and Signatures in Trap Door Knapsacks.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, September 1978. Merkle, R. Secrecy, Authentication, and Public Key Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, June 1979. Merkle, R., and Hellman, M. “On the Security of Multiple Encryption.” Communications of the ACM, July 1981. Merkle, R. “One Way Hash Functions and DES.” Proceedings, CRYPTO ’89, 1989; published by Springer-Verlag. Meyer, C., and Matyas, S. Cryptography: A New Dimension in Computer Data Security. New York: Wiley, 1982. Meyer, C., and Schilling, M. “Secure Program Load with Modification Detection Code.” Proceedings, SECURICOM 88, 1988. Micali, S., and Schnorr, C. “Efficient, Perfect Polynomial Random Number Generators.” Journal of Cryptology, January 1991. Miller, G. “Riemann’s Hypothesis and Tests for Primality.” Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, May 1975. Miller, S.; Neuman, B.; Schiller, J.; and Saltzer, J. “Kerberos Authentication and Authorization System.” Section E.2.1, Project Athena Technical Plan, M.I.T. Project Athena, Cambridge, MA, 27 October 1988. Mirkovic, J., and Relher, P. “A Taxonomy of DDoS Attack and DDoS Defense Mechanisms.” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review, April 2004. Mister, S., and Adams, C. “Practical S-Box Design.” Proceedings, Workshop in Selected Areas of Cryptography, SAC’ 96, 1996. Mitchell, C.; Piper, F. ; and Wild, P. “Digital Signatures.” in [SIMM92]. Miyaguchi, S.; Ohta, K.; and Iwata, M. “Confirmation that Some Hash Functions Are Not Collision Free.” Proceedings, EUROCRYPT ’90, 1990; published by Springer-Verlag. Moore, M. “ Inferring Internet Denial-of-Service Activity.” Proceedings of the 10th USENIX Security Symposium, 2001.

REFERENCES MURP90 MURP00 MUSA03 MYER91 NACH97 NACH02 NEED78 NEUM93a NEUM93b NEWS05 NICH96 NICH99 NING04 NIST95 NRC91 ODLY95 OPPL97 ORE67 ORMA03 PARK88a PARK88b PARZ06 PATE06 PATR04 PELT07 PERL99 PIAT91 POHL81 POIN02 POPP06

707

Murphy, S. “The Cryptanalysis of FEAL-4 with 20 Chosen Plaintexts.” Journal of Cryptology, No. 3, 1990. Murphy, T. Finite Fields. University of Dublin, Trinity College, School of Mathematics, 2000. Document available at this book’s Web site. Musa, M.; Schaefer, E.; and Wedig, S. “A Simplified AES Algorithm and Its Linear and Differential Cryptanalyses.” Cryptologia, April 2003. Myers, L. Spycomm: Covert Communication Techniques of the Underground. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press, 1991. Nachenberg, C. “Computer Virus-Antivirus Coevolution.” Communications of the ACM, January 1997. Nachenberg, C. “Behavior Blocking: The Next Step in Anti-Virus Protection.” White Paper, SecurityFocus.com, March 2002. Needham, R., and Schroeder, M. “Using Encryption for Authentication in Large Networks of Computers.” Communications of the ACM, December 1978. Neuman, B., and Stubblebine, S. “A Note on the Use of Timestamps as Nonces.” Operating Systems Review, April 1993. Neuman, B. “Proxy-Based Authorization and Accounting for Distributed Systems.” Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems, May 1993. Newsome, J.; Karp, B.; and Song, D. “Polygraph: Automatically Generating Signatures for Polymorphic Worms.”IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2005. Nichols, R. Classical Cryptography Course. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1996. Nichols, R. ed., ICSA Guide to Cryptography. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999. Ning, P., et al. “Techniques and Tools for Analyzing Intrusion Alerts.” ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, May 2004. National Institute of Standards and Technology. An Introduction to Computer Security: The NIST Handbook. Special Publication 800-12. October 1995. National Research Council. Computers at Risk: Safe Computing in the Information Age. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991. Odlyzko, A. “The Future of Integer Factorization.” CryptoBytes, Summer 1995. Oppliger, R. “Internet Security: Firewalls and Beyond.” Communications of the ACM, May 1997. Ore, O. Invitation to Number Theory. Washington, D.C.: The Mathematical Association of America, 1967. Orman, H. “The Morris Worm: A Fifteen-Year Perspective.” IEEE Security and Privacy, September/October 2003. Park, S., and Miller, K. “Random Number Generators: Good Ones are Hard to Find.” Communications of the ACM, October 1988. Parker, D.; Swope, S.; and Baker, B. Ethical Conflicts in Information and Computer Science, Technology and Business. Final Report, SRI Project 2609, SRI International1988. Parziale, L., et al. TCP/IP Tutorial and Technical Overview. ibm.com/redbooks, 2006. Paterson, K. “A Cryptographic Tour of the IPsec Standards.” Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2006/097, April 2006. Patrikakis, C.; Masikos, M.; and Zouraraki, O. “Distributed Denial of Service Attacks.” The Internet Protocol Journal, December 2004. Peltier, J. “Identity Management.” SC Magazine, February 2007. Perlman, R. “An Overview of PKI Trust Models.” IEEE Network, November/December 1999. Piattelli-Palmarini, M. “Probability: Neither Rational nor Capricious.” Bostonia, March 1991. Pohl, I., and Shaw, A. The Nature of Computation: An Introduction to Computer Science. Rockville, MD: Computer Science Press, 1981. Pointcheval, D. “How to Encrypt Properly with RSA.” CryptoBytes, Winter/Spring 2002. http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs. Popp, R., and Poindexter, J. “Countering Terrorism through Information and Privacy Protection Technologies.” IEEE Security and Privacy, November/December 2006.

708

REFERENCES

PORR92 PREN96 PREN99 PROC01 RABI78 RABI80 RADC04 RESC01 RIBE96 RIVE78 ROBS95a ROBS95b ROBS95c ROGA03 ROGA04 ROSE05 ROSH04 ROSI99 RITT91 RUEP92 RUKH08 SALT75 SCAR07 SCHN89 SCHN91 SCHN96 SCHN00 SCHO06 SHAM03

Porras, P. STAT: A State Transition Analysis Tool for Intrusion Detection. Master’s Thesis, University of California at Santa Barbara, July 1992. Preneel, B., and Oorschot, P. “On the Security of Two MAC Algorithms.” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1561; Lectures on Data Security, 1999; published by Springer-Verlag. Preneel, B. “The State of Cryptographic Hash Functions.” Proceedings, EUROCRYPT ’96, 1996; published by Springer-Verlag. Proctor, P., The Practical Intrusion Detection Handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. Rabin, M. “Digitalized Signatures.” Foundations of Secure Computation, DeMillo, R.; Dobkin, D.; Jones, A.; and Lipton, R., eds. New York: Academic Press, 1978. Rabin, M. “Probabilistic Algorithms for Primality Testing.” Journal of Number Theory, December 1980. Radcliff, D. “What Are They Thinking?” Network World, March 1, 2004. Rescorla, E. SSL and TLS: Designing and Building Secure Systems. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2001. Ribenboim, P. The New Book of Prime Number Records. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1996. Rivest, R.; Shamir, A.; and Adleman, L. “A Method for Obtaining Digital Signatures and Public Key Cryptosystems.” Communications of the ACM, February 1978. Robshaw, M. Stream Ciphers. RSA Laboratories Technical Report TR-701, July 1995. http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs. Robshaw, M. Block Ciphers. RSA Laboratories Technical Report TR-601, August 1995. http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs. Robshaw, M. MD2, MD4, MD5, SHA and Other Hash Functions. RSA Laboratories Technical Report TR-101, July 1995. http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs. Rogaway, P., and Wagner, A. “A Critique of CCM.” Cryptology ePrint Archive: Report 2003/070, April 2003. Rogaway, P. “Efficient Instantiations of Tweakable Blockciphers and Refinements to Modes OCB and PMAC.” Advances in Cryptology—Asiacrypt 2004. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3329. Springer-Verlag, 2004. Rosen, K. Elementary Number Theory and its Applications. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley, 2000. Roshan, P., and Leary, J. 802.11 Wireless LAN Fundamentals. Indianapolis: Cisco Press, 2004. Rosing, M. Implementing Elliptic Curve Cryptography. Greenwich, CT: Manning Publications, 1999. Ritter, T. “The Efficient Generation of Cryptographic Confusion Sequences.” Cryptologia, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1991. www.ciphersbyritter.com/ARTS/CRNG2ART.HTM. Rueppel, T. “Stream Ciphers.” In [SIMM92]. Rukhin, A., et al. A Statistical Test Suite for Random and Pseudorandom Number Generators for Cryptographic Applications. NIST SP 800-22, August 2008. Saltzer, J., and Schroeder, M. “The Protection of Information in Computer Systems.” Proceedings of the IEEE, September 1975. Scarfone, K., and Mell, P. Guide to Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems. NIST Special Publication SP 800-94, February 2007. Schnorr, C. “Efficient Identification and Signatures for Smart Cards.” EUROCRYPT, 1988. Schnorr, C. “Efficient Signature Generation by Smart Cards.” Journal of Cryptology, No. 3, 1991. Schneier, B. Applied Cryptography. New York: Wiley, 1996. Schneier, B. Secrets and Lies: Digital Security in a Networked World. New York: Wiley 2000. Schoenmakers, B., and Sidorenki, A. “Cryptanalysis of the Dual Elliptic Curve Pseudorandom Generator.” Cryptology ePrint Archive, Report 2006/190, 2006. eprint.iacr.org. Shamir, A., and Tromer, E. “On the Cost of Factoring RSA-1024.” CryptoBytes, Summer 2003. http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs.

REFERENCES SHAN49 SHAN77 SHIM05 SIDI05 SILV06 SIMM92 SIMM93 SIMO95 SING99 SINK66 SMIT97 SNAP91 SPAF92a SPAF92b STAL07 STAL08 STEI88 STEP93 STIN06 SUMM84 SYMA01 SYMA07 SZOR05 TAVA00 THOM84 TIME90 TSUD92 TUCH79 TUNG99 VACC89 VANO94

709

Shannon, C. “Communication Theory of Secrecy Systems.” Bell Systems Technical Journal, No. 4, 1949. Shanker, K.“The Total Computer Security Problem:An Overview.” Computer, June 1977. Shim, S.; Bhalla, G.; and Pendyala, V. “Federated Identity Management.” Computer, December 2005. Sidiroglou, S., and Keromytis, A. “Countering Network Worms Through Automatic Patch Generation.” IEEE Security and Privacy, November-December 2005. Silverman, J. A Friendly Introduction to Number Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2006. Simmons, G., ed. Contemporary Cryptology: The Science of Information Integrity. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 1992. Simmons, G. “Cryptology.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Fifteenth Edition, 1993. Simovits, M. The DES: An Extensive Documentation and Evaluation. Laguna Hills, CA: Aegean Park Press, 1995. Singh, S. The Code Book: The Science of Secrecy from Ancient Egypt to Quantum Cryptography. New York: Anchor Books, 1999. Sinkov, A. Elementary Cryptanalysis: A Mathematical Approach. Washington, D.C.: The Mathematical Association of America, 1966. Smith, R. Internet Cryptography. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1997. Snapp, S., et al. “A System for Distributed Intrusion Detection.” Proceedings, COMPCON Spring ’91, 1991. Spafford, E. “Observing Reusable Password Choices.” Proceedings, UNIX Security Symposium III, September 1992. Spafford, E. “OPUS: Preventing Weak Password Choices.” Computers and Security, No. 3, 1992. Stallings, W. Data and Computer Communications, Eighth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2007. Stallings, W., and Brown, L. Computer Security. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2008. Steiner, J.; Neuman, C.; and Schiller, J. “Kerberos: An Authentication Service for Open Networked Systems.” Proceedings of the Winter 1988 USENIX Conference, February 1988. Stephenson, P. “Preventive Medicine.” LAN Magazine, November 1993. Stinson, D. Cryptography: Theory and Practice. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall, 2006. Summers, R. “An Overview of Computer Security.” IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1984. Symantec Corp. The Digitial Immune System, Symantec Technical Brief, 2001. Symantec. “Security Implications of Microsoft Windows Vista.” Symantec Research Paper, 2007. symantec.com Szor, P., The Art of Computer Virus Research and Defense. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley, 2005. Tavani, H. “ Defining the Boundaries of Computer Crime: Piracy, Break-Ins, and Sabotage in Cyberspace.” Computers and Society, September 2000. Thompson, K. “Reflections on Trusting Trust (Deliberate Software Bugs).” Communications of the ACM, August 1984. Time, Inc. Computer Security, Understanding Computers Series. Alexandria, VA: TimeLife Books, 1990. Tsudik, G. “Message Authentication with One-Way Hash Functions.” Proceedings, INFOCOM ’92, May 1992. Tuchman, W. “Hellman Presents No Shortcut Solutions to DES.” IEEE Spectrum, July 1979. Tung, B. Kerberos:A Network Authentication System. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley, 1999. Vaccaro, H., and Liepins, G. “Detection of Anomalous Computer Session Activity.” Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Research in Security and Privacy, May 1989. van Oorschot, P., and Wiener, M. “Parallel Collision Search with Application to Hash Functions and Discrete Logarithms.” Proceedings, Second ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 1994.

710

REFERENCES

VANO90 VERN26 VIJA02 VOYD83 WACK02 WAGN00 WANG05 WARE79 WAYN96 WEAV03 WEBS86 WHIT99 WIEN90 WILS05 WOO92a WOO92b YLON96 YUVA79 ZENG91 ZOU05

van Oorschot, P., and Wiener, M. “A Known-Plaintext Attack on Two-Key Triple Encryption.” Proceedings, EUROCRYPT ’90, 1990; published by Springer-Verlag. Vernam, G “Cipher Printing Telegraph Systems for Secret Wire and Radio Telegraphic Communications.” Journal AIEE, 1926. Vijayan, J. “Denial-of-Service Attacks Still a Threat.” ComputerWorld, April 8, 2002. Voydock, V., and Kent., S. “Security Mechanisms in High-Level Network Protocols.” Computing Surveys, June 1983. Wack, J.; Cutler, K.; and Pole, J. Guidelines on Firewalls and Firewall Policy. NIST Special Publication SP 800-41, January 2002. Wagner, D., and Goldberg, I. “Proofs of Security for the UNIX Password Hashing Algorithm.” Proceedings, ASIACRYPT ’00, 2000. Wang, X.; Yin, Y.; and Yu, H. “Finding Collisions in the Full SHA-1.” Proceedings, Crypto ’05, 2005; published by Springer-Verlag. Ware, W., ed. Security Controls for Computer Systems. RAND Report 609-1. October 1979. http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R609-1/R609.1.html. Wayner, P. Disappearing Cryptography. Boston: AP Professional Books, 1996. Weaver, N., et al. “A Taxonomy of Computer Worms.” The First ACM Workshop on Rapid Malcode (WORM), 2003 Webster, A., and Tavares, S. “On the Design of S-Boxes.” Proceedings, Crypto ’85, 1985; published by Springer-Verlag. White, S. Anatomy of a Commercial-Grade Immune System. IBM Research White Paper, 1999. Wiener, M. “Cryptanalysis of Short RSA Secret Exponents.” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. IT-36, 1990. Wilson, J. “The Future of the Firewall.”Business Communications Review, May 2005. Woo, T., and Lam, S. “Authentication for Distributed Systems.” Computer, January 1992. Woo, T., and Lam, S. “ ‘Authentication’ Revisited.” Computer, April 1992. Ylonen, T. “SSH - Secure Login Connections over the Internet.” Proceedings, Sixth USENIX Security Symposium, July 1996. Yuval, G. “How to Swindle Rabin.” Cryptologia, July 1979. Zeng. K.; Yang, C.; Wei, D.; and Rao, T. “Pseudorandom Bit Generators in StreamCipher Cryptography.” Computer, February 1991. Zou, C., et al. “The Monitoring and Early Detection of Internet Worms.” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, October 2005.

Index A Abelian groups, 117, 309–310 Access control, 20–21 Access point (AP), IEEE 802.11, 526, 528 Active attacks, 15–19 Add key (AK) function, S-AES, 184–186 AddRoundKey transformation, AES, 150–151, 153–155, 165–166 Administrators, identity management, 474 Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), 67, 102, 132–133, 147–191 AddRoundKey transformation, 150–151, 153–155, 165–166 arithmetic operations for, 148–150 avalanche effect, 170–174 data structures, 152, 184 decryption (inverse), 153–155, 174–176, 183–188 8-bit processor implementation, 175–176 encryption, 153–155, 183–188 equivalent inverse cipher of, 174–176 finite fields of, 102, 132–133, 148–150 implementation, 174–178 interchanging decryption rounds for, 174–175 interchanging rounds in, 174–175 irreducible polynomial of, 149–150 key expansion algorithm, 166–170 MixColumns transformation, 150, 153–155, 162–165, 182 multiplication by x, 182–183 polynomial arithmetic with GF(28), 180–183 S-boxes, 156–161, 188–191 ShiftRows transformation, 150, 153–155, 161–162 simplified (S-AES), 183–191 State array of, 150, 155 structure of, 150–155 SubBytes (substitute bytes) transformation, 150, 153–155, 156–161 transformation functions, 155–166, 182 12-bit processor implementation, 177–178 AES, see Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) AKS (deterministic primality) algorithm, 254 Alert codes, TLS, 504–505 Alert Protocol, 489, 494–495, 554–555 Algorithms, 2–3, 33, 47–49, 75–77, 88–89, 95–96, 104–107, 112–115, 128–129, 166–170, 188–189, 222, 225–228, 252–254, 277–291, 296–299, 302–304, 327–409, 557–560, 595–597, 629 AES key expansion, 166–170 AKS (deterministic primality) algorithm, 254 big-O notation for, 297–299 Blowfish, 95–96 Blum Blum Shub (BBS) generator, 227–228 cryptographic, 2–3, 33, 557–560, 595–597 data authentication (DAA), 380–381 data encryption (DEA), 88–89 data integrity, 8, 327–409 decryption, 33 DES key schedule, 96 Diffie-Hellman key exchange, 302–304 digital signature (DSA), 403–406 division, 104–105 encryption, 33 ESP, 629 Euclidian, 105–107, 112–115, 128–129 exponential, 299 Feistel decryption, 75–77 Hill, 47–49 HMAC, 377–378 linear congruential number generators, 226–227 linear, 299 Miller-Rabin, 252–254

polynomial, 299 pseudorandom number generation (PRNG), 222, 225–228 RSA, 277–291, 296–297 S-AES key expansion, 188–189 S/MIME, 595–597 time complexity of, 297–299 WTLS, 557–560 American National Standard (ANS), 196 ANSI X9.17 PRNG, 231–232 Anti-replay service, ESP, 630 Asymmetric ciphers, 8, 243–299, 300–326, 422–424, 470–472 big-O notation, 297–299 Diffie-Hellman key exchange, 301–305, 318–319 ElGamal cryptographic system, 305–308 elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), 308–320, 323 encryption, 8, 269–277, 422–424 number theory, 243–265 pseudorandom number generation (PRNG), 321–323 public-key cryptography, 266–299, 300–326 Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) algorithm, 277–291, 296–297, 321–322 symmetric key distribution, 422–424 time complexity of algorithms, 297–299 user authentication (remote) using, 470–472 Asymmetric keys, 268 Attacks, 8, 15–19, 35–38, 89–92, 195–196, 285–291, 337–341, 374–375, 398–399, 447–448, 450, 466. See also Cryptanalysis active, 15–19 brute-force, 36, 38, 285, 337–340, 374–375 chosen ciphertext (CCA), 36, 285, 289–291 chosen plaintext, 36–37 cryptanalytic, 33, 35–38, 89–92, 277, 340–341, 375 denial of service, 16–17 DES, on, 89–92, 195–196 differential cryptanalysis, 90–92 digital signatures and, 398–399 hash function security and, 337–341 linear cryptanalysis, 92 masquerade, 16 mathematical, 285–287 meet-in-the-middle, 195–196, 305, 342 modification of messages, 16 passive, 15–17 password, 466 release of message contents, 16 replay, 16, 447–448, 450 RSA security and, 285–291 threats and, 15 timing, 89, 285, 287–289 traffic analysis, 16 Attribute service, 474 Authentication, 8, 20–21, 329–331, 364–372, 444–484, 498–500, 531, 534–536, 557–558, 570–573, 579–580, 636, 641–642. See also Message authentication codes (MAC) data-origin, 20–21 federated identity management, 472–478 IEEE 802.11i phase, 531, 534–536 IKE key determination, 641–642 Internet Protocol (IP), 636 Kerberos, 452–469 key exchange client and server, SSL, 498–500 message, 329–331, 364–372, 579–580 mutual, 447–451, 470–471 one-way, 448, 451–452, 471–472 peer entity, 20–21 pretty good privacy (PGP), 570–573, 579–580 protocols, 8

711

712

INDEX

Authentication (Continued) security services, 20–21 timestamp, 447–448, 579–580 user, 444–484 WTLS, 557–558 Authenticated encryption (AE), 383–389 approaches of, 383–384 cipher block chaining–message (CCM) authentication code, 384–386 counter (CTR) mode with, 384–389 Galois counter–message (GCM) authentication code, 386–389 Authentication server (AS), Kerberos, 454–455, 458, 460, 467 Autokey system, 51 Availability of service, 10–13, 22 Avalanche effect, 86–87, 170–174

B Base-64 (radix-64) transfer encoding, 593 Basic service set (BSS), IEEE 802.11, 525–526 Big-O notation, 297–299 Bijection, defined, 255 Binary operator, 108 Birthday attack, 338, 341–342, 356–361 cipher block chaining (CBC) mode for, 341–342 collision resistant requirements for, 338–340 duplications and, 359–360 inequality of, 359 mathematical basis of, 356–361 overlap between two sets, 360–361 paradox, 338, 357–358 Bit independence criterion (BIC), 94 Bit-by-bit exclusive-OR (XOR) hash function, 333–335 Block ciphers, 35, 66–100, 192–217, 229–232, 380–383 ANSI X9.17 PRNG, 231–232 cipher-based message authentication code (CMAC), 381–383 cipher block chaining (CBC) mode, 201–203 cipher feedback (CFB) mode, 203–204 conversion to stream ciphers (modes), 203–209 counter (CTR) mode, 203, 206–209, 229–231 data authentication algorithm (DAA), 380–381 Data Encryption Standard (DES), 67–68, 77–96 electronic code book (ECB) mode, 198–200 Feistel, 68–77 message authentication codes (MAC) based on, 380–383 multiple DES encryption, 193–198 operation, 192–217 output feedback (OFB) mode, 203, 205–206, 229–230 pseudorandom number generation (PRNG) using, 229–232 Shannon diffusion/confusion concepts, 72–73, stream ciphers and, 68–69, 203–209 substitution/permutation network (SPN), 72–75 XTS-AES mode for storage encryption, 210–214 Blowfish, 95–96 Blum Blum Shub (BBS) number generator, 227–228 Brute-force attacks, 36, 38, 40–41, 285, 337–340, 374–375 birthday paradox, 338–340 Caesar cipher example of, 40–41 collision resistant, 338–340 encryption and, 36, 38 hash functions and, 337–340 message authentication code (MAC), 374–375 preimage, 338 RSA algorithms and, 258

C Caesar cipher, 39–41 Canonical form, MIME and S/MIME, 593 Certificates, 268, 427–439, 498–500, 505–506, 600–603 authority (CA), 430–434, 437, 601 enhanced security services, 603

end entity, 437 key and policy information, 436 key distribution and, 427–439 path constraints, 437 public-key, 268, 427–429 public-key infrastructure (PKI), 437–439 registration authority (RA), 438 repository, 438 revocation lists (CRL), 434–435, 438, 600 S/MIME, 600–603 SSL messages for key exchange, 498–500 subject and issuer attributes, 436–437 TLS client types, 505–506 user, 432–434, 601 VeriSign, 601–603 X.509, 429–439 Certificates-only message, S/MIME, 600 Change Cipher Spec Protocol, 489, 493–494, 500, 553–554 Channels, SSH, 515–516 Chinese remainder theorem, 254–257 Chosen ciphertext attack (CCA), 36, 285, 289–291 Chosen plaintext attack, 36–37. See also Differential cryptanalysis CIA triad, 10–11 Cipher-based message authentication code (CMAC), 381–383 Cipher block chaining–message (CCM) authentication code, 384–386 Cipher block chaining (CBC) mode, 201–203, 334–335, 341–342, 465, 483–484 block cipher use of, 201–203 hash functions based on, 334–335, 341–342 propagating (PCBC), Kerberos, 465, 483–484 Cipher feedback (CFB) mode, 203–204 Cipher suites, TLS, 505 Ciphers, 35, 38–55, 66–100, 174–176, 192–217, 218–241 block, 35, 66–100, 192–217 Caesar, 39–41 equivalent inverse, AES, 174–176 Hill, 46–49 monoalphabetic, 41–44 Playfair, 44–46 polyalphabetic, 49–52 rail fence, 53–54 stream, 35, 68–69, 218–241 substitution techniques, 38–53 transposition techniques, 53–55 Vernam, 51–52 Vigenère, 49–51 Ciphertext, 32–33, 36–53, 271 asymmetric encryption, 271 brute-force attacks, 36–37 substitution techniques using, 38–53 symmetric encryption, 32–33, 36–53 Ciphertext-stealing technique, 213–214 Clear signing, S/MIME, 599–600 Client/server authentication, Kerberos, 457–460, 467 Coefficient set of integers (S), 123 Collision, hash functions, 335–336, 338–340 Commutative ring, 118 Compression, 340–341, 491, 573–574 hash function (f), 340–341 PGP, 573–574 SSL, 491 Computational resistance, MAC security, 374–375 Confidentiality, 10–12, 20–21, 571–573, 629, 636 connection and connectionless, 20 data, 10, 20–21 Internet Protocol (IP), 629, 636 pretty good privacy (PGP), 571–573 privacy and, 10 selective-field, 20 traffic flow (TFC), 20, 629 Confusion concept, 72–73 Congruent modulo (mod n), 108, 257–259 Connection, SSL, 489

INDEX Connection confidentiality and integrity, 20 Connection Protocol, SSH, 509, 514–518 Connectionless confidentiality and integrity, 20 Constant polynomial, 123 Cookie exchange, 640–641 Counter (CTR) mode, 203, 206–209, 229–231, 384–389 authenticated encryption (AE) using, 384–389 block to stream cipher conversion, 203, 206–209 cipher block chaining–message (CCM) authentication code, 384–386 Galois counter–message (GCM) authentication code, 386–389 pseudorandom number generation (PRNG), 229–231 Cryptanalysis, 33, 35–38, 89–92, 277, 340–341, 375 Data Encryption Standard (DES) and, 89–92 differential, 89–92 encryption and, 33, 35–38 hash functions, 340–341 linear, 92 message authentication code (MAC), 375 public-key, 277 Cryptographic algorithms, 2–3. See also Algorithms Cryptographic checksum, 369–372. See also Message authentication code (MAC) Cryptographic computations, 500–501, 506 Cryptographic systems, see Ciphers Cryptographically secure pseudorandom bit generator (CSPRBG), 228 Cryptography, 32, 35, 266–299, 300–326 Cryptology, 33 Cyclic group, 117

D Data authentication algorithm (DAA), 380–381 Data authentication code (DAC), 380–381 Data consumers, identity management, 474 Data Encryption Algorithm (DEA), 77, 88–89 Data Encryption Standard (DES), 67–68, 77–96, 193–198 algorithm (DEA), 88–89 avalanche effect, 86–87 block cipher operation for, 193–198 design principles, 92–96 differential cryptanalysis and, 89–92 double, 194–196 F function, 94–96 56-bit keys for, 88 initial permutation (IP), 79–81 multiple encryption, 193–198 rounds in, 93–94 S-boxes, 81–83, 92–96 single round details, 81–83 timing attacks, 89 triple (3DES), 77, 196–198 triple algorithm (TDEA), 77 Data integrity algorithms, 8, 20, 22, 327–394, 394–409 authenticated encryption (AE), 383–389 cipher-based message authentication code (CMAC), 381–383 data authentication algorithm (DAA), 380–381 digital signatures, 331–332, 395–409 hash functions, 327–361, 365, 375–380, 390–391 message authentication codes (MAC), 331, 362–394 pseudorandom number generation (PRNG), 333, 389–392 secure hash algorithm (SHA), 342–353 security service and, 20, 22 Data-origin authentication, 20–21 Decentralized key control, 419–420 Decryption, 32–33, 83–85, 153–155, 174–176, 183–188, 271, 275–277 Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) inverse functions, 153–155, 174–176 algorithm, 33 asymmetric ciphers and, 271, 275–277 cryptanalysis, 32–33

713

Data Encryption Standard (DES), 83–85 equivalent inverse cipher, 174–176 simplified AES (S-AES) inverse functions, 183–188 symmetric ciphers and, 32–33, 83–85, 153–155, 174–176, 183–188 Denial of service, 16–17 Deskewing algorithms, 237 Determinant, 46–47 Deterministic primality (AKS) algorithm, 254 Differential cryptanalysis, 89–92 Diffie-Hellman key exchange, 301–305, 318–319, 497, 501 algorithm, 302–304 anonymous, 497 elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) analog of, 318–319 ephemeral, 497 fixed, 497 man-in-the-middle attack, 305 protocols, 304 SSL Handshake Protocol, 497, 501 Diffusion concept, 72–73 Digital signatures, 269, 273, 275, 331–332, 395–409 algorithm (DSA), 403–406 attacks and forgeries, 398–399 ElGamal scheme, 400–402 hash functions used for, 331–332 properties, 396–398 public-key cryptography and, 269, 273, 275 Schnorr scheme, 402–403 standard (DSS), 403–406 Digrams, 43 Direct digital signatures, 400 Discovery phase, IEEE 802.11i, 531–534 Discrete logarithms, 257–262, 302 calculation of, 262 Diffie-Hellmann key exchange, 302 modular arithmetic, 259–261 powers of modulo n (mod n), 257–259 Distribution system (DS), IEEE 802.11, 526–528 Divisibility, 103–104 Division algorithm, 104–105 Divisor, 103, 125 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM), 603–610 e-mail threats, 605–607 functional flow, 607–610 Internet mail architecture, 604–605 Double DES, 194–196

E ECC, see Elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) 8-bit processor, AES implementation of, 175–176 Electronic code book (ECB) mode, 198–200 Electronic mail security, 567–650 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM), 603–610 pretty good privacy (PGP), 568–587 radix-64 conversion, 612–614 Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (S/MIME), 568, 587–603 ElGamal encryption, 305–308, 400–402 Elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), 308–320, 323 abelian groups for, 309–310 binary curve over GF(2m), 312–313, 315–317 Diffie–Hellman key exchange analog for, 318–319 encryption/decryption system for, 319–320 prime curve over Zp, 312–315 pseudorandom number generation (PRNG), 323 real numbers and, 310–312 security of, 320 Encapsulating security payload (ESP), 627–634 algorithms, 629 anti-replay service, 630 format, 628–629 padding, 629 transport mode, 631–633 tunnel mode, 631–634

714

INDEX

Encryption, 8, 31–100, 153–155, 183–188, 210–214, 269–277, 305–308, 365–368, 400–402, 413–424. See also Asymmetric ciphers; Block ciphers; Stream ciphers; Symmetric ciphers Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), 153–155, 183–188 algorithm, 33, 271 asymmetric, 8, 269–277, 422–424 brute-force attack, 36, 38, 40–41 ciphers, 39–52, 66–100 ciphertext, 32–33, 36, 38–53, 271 computationally secure, 37 cryptanalysis, 33, 35–38 cryptography, 32, 35 Data Encryption Standard (DES), 67–68, 77–96 digital signature, 269, 273, 275 ElGamal, 305–308, 400–402 end-to-end, 413–415 key distribution, 413–422 plaintext, 32–33, 35, 38–55, 271 private key, 271–275 public key, 269–277 rotor machines, 55–57 secret key, 33–34, 271 simplified AES (S-AES), 183–188 steganography, 57–58 substitution cipher techniques, 38–53 symmetric, 8, 33–38, 66–100, 365–368, 413–422 transposition cipher techniques, 53–55 unconditionally secure, 37 XTS-AES for storage, 210–214 Encryption/decryption system, ECC, 319–320 End entity, PKIX, 437 End-to-end encryption, 413–415, 560–563 Entropy source, TRNG, 221, 237 EnvelopedData, S/MIME, 598–599 Equivalent inverse cipher, 174–176 Error control, internal and external, 368 ESP, see Encapsulating security payload (ESP) Euclidian algorithm, 105–107, 112–115, 128–129, 133–137 extended, 113–115, 133–137 greatest common divisor (gcd), 105–107, 128–129 modular arithmetic and, 112–115 modular polynomial arithmetic and, 133–137 multiplicative inverse, 133–135 polynomial arithmetic of, 128–129 Euler’s theorem, 250–251 Euler’s totient function f(n), 249–250 Exponential algorithm, 299 Exponentiation in modular arithmetic, RSA, 282–283 Extended basic service set (EBSS), IEEE 802.11, 526 External Functionality Interface (EFI), WAP, 547

F F function, DES, 94–96 Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS), 6 Federated identity management, 472–478 Feistel cipher, 68–77 algorithm, 75–77 ideal, 70–77 Shannon diffusion/confusion concepts, 72–73 structure, 68–71 substitution/permutation network (SPN), 72–75 Fermat’s theorem, 248–249 Fields (F), 118–119 Finite fields, 102, 120–122, 126–127, 129–140, 149–150 addition in, 136 Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) in, 102, 132–133, 149–150 extended Euclidian algorithm for,133–137 generator (g) of, 138–140 modular polynomial arithmetic over, 131–140 modulo operations GF(pn), 129–140 multiplication in, 136–137 multiplicative inverse, 121–122, 133–135

number theory and, 120–122, 129–140 polynomial arithmetic over, 126–127 prime p order GF(p), 120–122 root (b) of, 138 Forgeries, digital signatures and, 398–399 Fortezza key exchange, 497–499, 501 Fragmentation, SSL, 491 Frame check sequence (FCS), 367–368 Frequency test, PRNG, 223

G Galois counter–message (GCM) authentication code, 386–389 Generator (a), 117, 138–140 Greatest common divisor (gcd), 105–107, 127–129 Group master key (PMK), IEEE 802.11i, 538–539 Groups (G), 116–117, 119 Guaranteed avalanche (GA), 95

H Handshake Protocol, 489, 495–500, 555–557 Hash functions, 327–361, 365, 375–380, 390–391 birthday attack, 338–342, 356–361 bit-by-bit exclusive–OR (XOR) method, 333–335 brute-force attacks, 337–340 cipher block chaining (CBC) mode for, 334–335, 341–342 collision properties, 335–336, 338–340 compression function (f), 340–341 cryptanalysis, 340–341 cryptographic, 328–329 digital signatures, 331–332 hash value (h), 328–329 keyed, 331 message authentication code (HMAC), 331, 375–380 message digest for authentication, 329–331, 365 one-bit rotation method, 333–335 preimage properties, 335–336,338 pseudorandom number generation (PRNG) based on, 333, 390–391 pseudorandomness, 337 secure hash algorithm (SHA), 342–353 security requirements, 335–341 Hill cipher, 46–49 HMAC, 331, 375–380 algorithm, 377–378 design objectives, 376–377 keyed hash function of, 331 security, 378–380 Host keys, SSH, 509 HTTPS, 486, 506–508

I Identity federation, 474–478 Identity management, 472–474 IEEE 802.11 LAN, 523–528 association-related services, 528 message distribution, 527–528 network components, 525–526 protocol architecture, 524–525 IEEE 802.11i LAN, 529–543 authentication phase, 531, 534–536 characteristics of, 529 connection termination, 532 discovery phase, 531–534 key management phase, 532, 536–540 phases of operation, 530–532 protected data transfer phase, 532, 540–541 pseudorandom function (PRF), 541–543 Robust Security Network (RSN), 529–530 services, 529–530 Independent basic service set (IBSS), IEEE 802.11, 526 Indeterminate variable, 123 Information access threats, 27

INDEX Initial permutation (IP), 79–81 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), 210 Integral domain, 118 Integrity, 10–13, 20, 22–23 Interchanging rounds in AES, 174–175 International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 6 International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 6 Internet Architecture Board (IAB), 6, 616–617 Internet Engineering Task Force (ITEF), 6 Internet key exchange (IKE), 638–646 cookies, 640–641 header and payload formats, 643–646 IKEv5 message exchange, 642–643 key determination protocol, 639–646 Internet protocol (IP), 487–488, 615–649 authentication plus confidentiality, 636 combining security associations (SA), 634–638 cryptographic suites, 647–648 encapsulating security payload (ESP), 627–634 Internet key exchange (IKE), 638–646 security (IPsec), 616–621 security association database (SAD), 622–624 security policy database (SPD), 622, 624–625 traffic processing, 625–627 Internet Protocol security (IPsec), 616–625 documents, 619–620 packets, 625–627 policy, 622–625 routing, 619 transport mode, 620–622 tunnel mode, 620–622 Internet security, 8–9, 482–520, 567–650, 651–649 electronic mail, 567–650 Internet protocol (IP), 487–488, 615–649 network security and, 8–9 Transport Layer Security (TLS), 486, 488 transport-level, 485–520 Internet Security Association and Key Management Protocol (ISAKMP), 639 Internet Society (ISOC), 6 Intrusion detection, hash functions for, 332–333 Inverse S–boxes (IS), AES, 157–158, 160–165 Irreducible polynomial, 126, 149–150 ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector (ITU-T), 6, 15

K Kerberos, 452–469, 481–484 authentication dialogues, 454–461, 466–468 authentication server (AS), 454–455, 458, 460, 467 client/server authentication, 457–460, 467 environmental shortcomings, 464–465 password–to–key transformation, 481–482 principle, 462 propagating cipher block chaining (PCBC), 465, 483–484 protocol, 454–461 realms, 461–463 technical deficiencies, 465–466 ticket flags, 468–469 ticket-granting server (TGS), 456–461, 467 user authentication and, 452–469 version 4, 454–463 version 5, 463–469 Key distribution, 411–443, 532, 536–540, 576–587 asymmetric encryption used for, 422–424 center (KDC), 415–417, 424 certificates, 427–439 decentralized key control, 419–420 hierarchy, 415, 417, 537 IEEE 802.11i management phase, 532, 536–540 key identifiers, 576–579 key rings, 579–582 key usage control, 420–422 master key, 414–415 pretty good privacy (PGP), 576–587

715

private key, 579–580 public key, 424–429, 580–587 public–key infrastructure (PKI), 437–439 secret key, 422–424 session key, 417, 576–579 symmetric encryption used for, 413–422 symmetric, 413–422 transparent key control, 417–419 wireless network security, 536–540 X.509 certificates, 429–437 Key exchange, 275, 301–305, 318–319, 497–500, 511–512, 558–559, 638–646 certificate messages for, 498–500 client authentication and, 499–500 Diffie–Hellman, 301–305, 318–319, 497, 558–559 Fortezza, 497–499 Internet (IKE) key determination protocol, 639–646 Internet, 638–646 RSA, 497, 558–559 server authentication and, 498–499 SSH Transport Layer Protocol, 511–512 SSL Handshake Protocol, 497–500 WTLS, 558–559 Key expansion algorithm, AES, 166–170, 188–189 Key generation, 83, 284–285, 513, 559–560, 576 DES, 83 PGP, 576 RSA, 284–285 SSH, 513 WTLS, 559–560 Key identifiers (key ID), PGP, 576–579 Key management, see Key distribution Key rings, PGP, 579–582 Key schedule algorithm, DES, 96 Keyed hash function, see Message authentication code (MAC)

L Linear algorithm, 299 Linear congruential number generators, 226–227 Linear cryptanalysis, 92 Logic link control (LLC) layer, IEEE 802, 525

M MAC protocol data unit (MPDU), IEEE 802, 524–525, 527, 533–536 MAC service data unit (MSDU), IEEE 802, 524–525, 527 Masquerade attacks, 16 Master key, 414–415, 559–560 Master secret creation, 501, 506 Master session key (MSK), IEEE 802.11i, 536 Mathematical attacks, RSA, 285–287 Maurer’s universal statistical test, 224 Media access control (MAC) layer, IEEE 802, 524–525 Meet-in-the-middle attack, 195–196, 305, 342. See also Birthday attack Message authentication, 329–331, 364–372 code (MAC), 369–372 encryption, 365–369 functions, 365–372 hash functions, 329–331, 365 Message authentication codes (MAC), 331, 362–394, 491–493, 502 authenticated encryption (AE), 383–389 block-cipher based, 380–383 brute-force attacks, 374–375 cipher-based (CMAC), 381–383 cryptanalysis, 375 cryptographic checksum method of, 369–372 data authentication algorithm (DAA), 380–381 data authentication code (DAC), 380–381 hash-function based (HMAC), 331, 375–380 pseudorandom number generation (PRNG) based on, 391–392

716

INDEX

Message authentication codes (MAC), (Continued) security, 374–375 SSL, 491–493 tag, 372–374 TLS, 502 Message digest, 329–331 Messages, 16, 52–53, 365–372, 513–514, 576–582, 597–600, 642–643 authentication code (MAC), 369–372 frame check sequence (FCS), 367–368 IKEv5 exchange, 642–643 internal and external error control, 368 key rings for, 576–582 modification of, 16 one-time pad encryption, 52–53 pretty good privacy (PGP), 576–582 public-key encryption, 368–369 release of contents, 16 Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (S/MIME), 597–600 SSH exchange, 513–514 symmetric encryption, 365–368 Miller-Rabin algorithm, 252–254 Mix column (MC) function, S-AES, 184–185, 187–188 MixColumns transformation, AES, 150, 153–155, 162–165, 182 Modification of messages, 16 Modular arithmetic, 108–115, 131–137, 257–261, 282–283 congruence (mod n), properties of, 108, 257–259 discrete logarithms of, 257–261 Euclidian algorithm and, 112–115, 133–137 exponentiation in, RSA, 282–283 operations, 108–110 polynomials, 131–137 properties of, 110–112 residue (r) classes (Zn), 110–111 Modulus (n), 108 Monic polynomial, 123 Monoalphabetic ciphers, 41–44 Multiplicative inverse, 118, 121–122, 133–135 Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME), 588–593 canonical form, 593 content types, 590–592 transfer encodings, 592–593 Mutual authentication, 447–451, 470–471 Mutual Trust, 3, 411–484. See also Key distribution; User authentication

N National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 6, 77, 210, 342–343 National Security Agency (NSA), 269 Network access security model, 26–27 Network security, 3, 8–9, 485–520–566 Internet security and, 8–9 transport–level, 485–520 wireless, 521–566 Secure Socket Layer (SSL), 486, 488–501 Secure Shell (SSH), 486, 508–518 HTTPS, 486, 506–508 Next-bit test, 228 Nibble substitution (NS) function, S-AES, 184–185, 187 Nonce, 202–203, 641 Nonrepudiation, 20, 22 Nonsecret encryption, see Public–key cryptography Number theory, 101–146 asymmetric ciphers, 243–265 Chinese remainder theorem, 254–257 discrete logarithms, 257–262 divisibility, 103–104 division algorithm, 104–105 Euclidian algorithm, 105–107, 112–115, 128–129, 133–137 Euler’s theorem, 250–251 Euler’s totient function f(n), 249–250 Fermat’s theorem, 248–249

fields (F), 118–119 finite fields and, 120–122, 126–127, 129–140 generator (a), 117, 138–140 greatest common divisor (gcd), 105–107, 127–129 groups (G), 116–117, 119 Miller-Rabin algorithm, 252–254 modular arithmetic, 108–115, 259–261 multiplicative inverse, 118, 121–122, 133–135 polynomial arithmetic, 122–129, 131–134 prime numbers, 245–254 rings (R), 117–119 symmetric ciphers, 101–146

O Oakley Key Determination Protocol, 637 One-bit rotation hash function, 333–335 One-time pad, 52–53 One-way authentication, 448, 451–452, 471–472 One-way encryption function, 276 One-way password file, hash functions for, 332 Open Systems Interconnection (OSI), 8, 14–25 security attacks, 8, 15–19 security mechanism, 8, 23–25 security services, 8, 19–22 Optimal asymmetric encryption padding (OAEP), 290–291 Output feedback (OFB) mode, 203, 205–206, 229–230

P Packet exchange, SSH, 509–511 Packets, IPsec, 625–627 Padding, 506, 629 Pairwise master key (PMK), IEEE 802.11i, 537–538 Pairwise transient key (PTK), IEEE 802.11i, 538–539 Passive attacks, 15–17 Passwords, 446, 466, 473, 481–482 attacks, 466 authentication use of, 446, 473 Kerberos password-to-key transformation, 481–482 synchronization, 473 Path constraints, X.509 certificates, 437 Peer entity authentication, 20–21 Permutation, 41, 72, 93, 116 Personal identification number (PIN), 446 Physical layer, IEEE 802, 524 Plaintext, 32–33, 35, 38–55, 271 asymmetric encryption, 271 chosen, 37 known, 37 substitution (ciphertext) techniques, 38–53 symmetric encryption, 32–33, 35, 38–55 transposition techniques, 53–55 Playfair cipher, 44–46 Polyalphabetic ciphers, 49–52 Polynomial algorithm, 299 Polynomial arithmetic, 122–129, 131–134, 180–183 AES coefficients in GF(28), 180–183 coefficient set of integers (S), 123 Euclidian algorithm for, 128–129, 133–136 finite fields GF(n), over, 126–127, 131–137 greatest common divisor (gcd) in, 127–129 MixColumns transformations and, 182 modular, 131–137 multiplication by x, 182–183 polynomial ring, 124–127 Port forwarding, SSH, 516–518 Preimage, hash functions, 335–336, 338 Preoutput, DES, 79 Pre-shared key (PSK), IEEE 802.11i, 536 Pretty good privacy (PGP), 568–587 authentication, 570–573 compression, 573–574 confidentiality, 571–573 e-mail compatibility, 574–575

INDEX key identifiers, 576–579 key rings, 579–582 notation for, 569–570 private key, 579–580 public-key, 580–587 session key, 576–579 trust, fields for, 583–587 Prime numbers, 245–254 AKS (deterministic primality) algorithm, 254 distribution of, 254 Euler’s theorem, 250–251 Euler’s totient function f(n), 249–250 Fermat’s theorem, 248–249 fundamental theorem of arithmetic, 245–247 Miller-Rabin algorithm, 252–254 properties of, 252 testing for, 251–254 Prime polynomial, 126 Principle, identity management and, 473–474 Principle, Kerberos, 462 Private key, 268, 270–275, 284, 579–580 digital signatures using, 273, 275 encryption, 270–275 pretty good privacy (PGP), 579–580 public key and, 268 ring, 579–580 RSA efficiency using, 284 Propagating cipher block chaining (PCBC), 465, 483–484 Protected data transfer phase, IEEE 802.11i, 540–541 Pseudorandom function (PRF), 222–225, 333, 390–391, 502–504, 541–543, 559 hash functions for, 333, 390–391 IEEE 802.11i, 541–543 PRNG requirements, 222–225 TLS, 502–504 WTLS, 559 Pseudorandom number generation (PRNG), 218–241, 321–323, 333, 390–392 algorithms, 222, 225–228 ANSI X9.17, 231–232 asymmetric ciphers, 321–323 block cipher modes of operation for, 229–232 Blum Blum Shub (BBS) generator, 227–228 elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) based, 323 hash functions for, 333, 390–391 linear congruential generators, 226–227 MAC functions for, 391–392 pseudorandom function (PRF), 222–225, 333 random numbers for, 219–221 randomness criteria, 220–221, 223–224 RC4, 234–237 RSA-based, 321–322 seed, 221–222, 224–225 stream cipher modes of operation for, 232–237 symmetric ciphers for, 218–241 true random number generator (TRNG), 219, 221–222, 237–238 unpredictability criteria, 221, 224–225 Pseudorandomness, hash functions, 337 Public key, 268, 271–273, 283, 424–429, 437–439, 580–587 authority, 426–427 certificates, 268, 427–429, 437–439 directory of, 425–426 distribution, 424–429 encryption, 270–275 infrastructure (PKI), 437–439 key exchange, 275 management, 582–587 pretty good privacy (PGP), 580–587 private key and, 268 public announcement of, 425 revoking, 587 ring, 579–582 RSA efficiency using, 283 trust, PGP fields, 583–587

717

Public–key cryptography, 266–326, 368–369 asymmetric keys, 268 big-O notation, 297–299 cryptanalysis, 277 cryptographic algorithm, 268 digital signatures and, 269, 273, 275 encryption, 269–277, 368–369 infrastructure (PKI), 268 key exchange, 275 message confidentiality, 368–369 misconceptions of, 267–268 principles of, 269–277 Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) algorithm, 277–291, 296–297 time complexity of algorithms, 297–299 trap-door one-way function, 276–277 Public-key infrastructure (PKI), 437–439

Q Quoted-printable transfer encoding, 593

R Radix-64 conversion, 612–614 Rail fence cipher, 43–54 Random numbers, 219–221 Randomness criteria, PRNG, 220–221, 223–224 RC4 stream cipher, PRNG, 234–237 Realms, Kerberos, 461–463 Record Protocol, 489, 491–493, 552–553 Recovery, integrity and, 20 Reduced sign–on (RSO), 473 Registration authority (RA), PKIX, 438 Relatively prime integers, 105, 111, 120 Release of message contents, 16 Remote user authentication, 445–452, 470–472 Replay attacks, 16, 447–448, 450, 630 Repository, PKIX, 438 Requests for Comments (RFC), 6, 15, 588, 605–606 RFC 5322, S/MIME, 588 RFC 6484, e-mail threats, 605–606 RFC 2828, threats and attacks, 15 Residue (r), 104–105, 110–111 Rijndael, 148, 168, 175–178 Rings (R), 117–119 Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) algorithm, 277–291, 296–297, 321–322, 497, 501, 558–559 chosen ciphertext attacks, 285, 289–291 computational aspects of, 282–285 description of, 278–281 exponentiation in modular arithmetic, 282–283 key exchange, 497, 501, 558–559 key generation, 284–285 mathematical attacks, 285–287 proof of, 296–297 pseudorandom number generation (PRNG), 321–322 security of, 285–291 SSL Handshake Protocol, 497, 501 timing attacks, 285, 287–289 WTLS, 558–559 Rotor machines, 55–57 Rounds, DES, 81–83, 93–94 Routing, IPsec, 619 RSA algorithm, see Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) algorithm Runs test, PRNG, 223–224

S S-AES, see Simplified Advanced Encryption Standard (S-AES) S-boxes, 81–83, 92–96, 156–161, 188–191 AES, 156–161 DES, 81–83, 92–96 inverse (IS), 157–158, 160–165 S-AES, 188–191 Sage projects and examples, 651–698

718

INDEX

Schnorr digital signature scheme, 402–403 Secret key, 33–34, 271, 422–424 distribution, 422–424 hybrid distribution scheme, 424 symmetric encryption using, 33–34, 271 Secure hash algorithm (SHA), 342–353 logic, 343–346 round function, 346–349 SHA-512 algorithm, 343–346 SHA-3 algorithm, 352–353 Secure Shell (SSH), 486, 508–518 channels, 515–516 Connection Protocol, 509, 514–518 host keys, 509 key exchange and generation, 511–513 message exchange, 513–514 packet exchange, 509–511 port forwarding, 516–518 Transport Layer Protocol, 508–513 User Authentication Protocol, 509, 513–514 Secure Socket Layer (SSL), 486, 488–501 Alert Protocol, 489, 494–495 architecture, 489–490 Change Cipher Spec Protocol, 489, 493–494, 500 cryptographic computations, 500–501 Handshake Protocol, 489, 495–500 Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), 489, master secret, 501 message authentication code (MAC), 491–493 Record Protocol, 489, 491–493 session, 489–490 Secure/Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (S/MIME), 568, 587–603 certificate processing, 601–603 clear signing, 599–600 cryptographic algorithms, 595–597 functionality, 593–597 messages, 597–600 Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME), 588–593 Security, 3, 5–30, 285–291, 320, 335–351, 374–375, 378–380. See also Attacks; Authentication; Cryptanalysis; Internet security attacks, 8, 15–19 authentication, 8, 20–21 availability, 10–13, 22 challenges of, 13–14 CIA triad, 10–11 confidentiality, 10–12, 20–21 cryptographic algorithms and protocols, 8 elliptic curve cryptography (ECC), 320 hash function requirements, 335–341 HMAC, 378–380 integrity, 10–13, 20, 22–23 mechanism, 8, 23–25 message authentication code (MAC), 374–375 models for, 25–27 network, 3, 8–9, 25–27 NIST definition of, 9–10 Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) security architecture, 8, 14–25 Rivest-Shamir-Adleman (RSA) algorithm, 285–291 services, 8, 19–22, 24–25 standards, 5–6 threats, 15, 27 Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML), 476 Security association (SA), IP, 622–624, 634–638 Security association database (SAD), 622–624 Security policy database (SPD), 622, 624–625 Seed, PRNG, 221–222, 224–225 Selective–field confidentiality and integrity, 20 Service request, SSH, 513 Service threats, 27 Session, SSL, 489–490 Session key, 417, 466, 576–579 Session security module (SSM), 417–419

Shannon diffusion/confusion concepts, 72–73 Shift row (SR) function, S-AES, 184–185, 187 ShiftRows transformation, AES, 150, 153–155, 161–162 SignedData, S/MIME, 599 Simplified Advanced Encryption Standard (S-AES), 183–191 add key (AK) function, 184–186 decryption (inverse), 183–188 encryption, 183–188 key expansion algorithm, 188–189 mix column (MC) function, 184–185, 187–188 nibble substitution (NS) function, 184–185, 187 S-box construction, 188–191 shift row (SR) function, 184–185, 187 structure of, 190–191 Single round, DES, 81–83 Single sign-on (SSO), 472–473 Skew, TRNG, 237–238 Special Publications (SP), 6 SSH, see Secure Shell (SSH) SSL, see Secure Socket Layer (SSL) State array, 150, 155 State vector (S) initialization, RC4, 235 Steganography, 57–58 Storage encryption, XTS-AES for, 210–214 Stream ciphers, 35, 68–69, 203–209, 232–237 block ciphers and, 68–69, 203–209 cipher feedback (CFB) mode, 203–204 conversion from block ciphers (modes), 203–209 counter (CTR) mode, 203, 206–209 keystream, 232–233 output feedback (OFB) mode, 203, 205–206 pseudorandom number generators (PRNG), 232–237 RC4, 234–237 Strict avalanche criterion (SAC), 94 SubBytes (substitute bytes) transformation, AES, 150, 153–161 Substitution cipher techniques, 38–53, 68–77 autokey system, 51 Caesar cipher, 39–41 determinant, 46–47 Feistel cipher, 68–77 Hill cipher, 46–49 monoalphabetic ciphers, 41–44 one-time pad, 52–53 permutation and, 41, 72 Playfair cipher, 44–46 polyalphabetic ciphers, 49–52 Substitution/permutation network (SPN), 72–75 Supress-replay attacks, 450 Symmetric ciphers, 8, 33–38, 66–240, 365–368, 413–422, 448–452 Advanced Encryption Standard (AES), 67, 102, 132–133, 147–191 block ciphers, 35, 66–100, 192–217, 229–232 cryptosystem model, 34–35 Data Encryption Standard (DES), 67–68, 77–96 encryption, 8, 33–38, 66–100, 365–368, 413–422, 448–452 key distribution using, 413–422 message authentication and confidentiality, 365–368 model for, 33–34 modular arithmetic for, 108–115, 131–137 number theory of, 101–146 plaintext, 33, 35 polynomial arithmetic for, 122–129, 131–134, 180–183 pseudorandom number generation (PRNG), 218–241 secret key for encryption, 33–34 stream ciphers, 35, 68–69, 203–209, 232–237 substitution techniques, 68–77 user authentication (remote) using, 448–452 Symmetric key distribution, 413–422 asymmetric encryption used for, 422–424 decentralized key control, 419–420 end-to-end encryption, 413–415 key control hierarchy, 415, 417 key distribution center (KDC), 415–417, 424

INDEX key usage control, 420–422 symmetric encryption used for, 413–422 transparent key control, 417–419

T Tag, MAC authenticator, 372–374 Threats, 15, 27, 605–607. See also Attacks Ticket flags, Kerberos, 468–469 Ticket, Kerberos, 455 Ticket-granting server (TGS), 456–461, 467 Time complexity of algorithms, 297–299 Timestamp authentication, 447–448, 577, 579–580 Timing attacks, 89, 285, 287–289 TLS, see Transport Layer Security (TLS) Traffic analysis, 16 Traffic flow confidentiality (TFC), 20, 629 Traffic processing, IP, 625–627 Transformation functions, AES, 155–166, 182 AddRoundKey, 150–151, 153–155, 165–166 forward, 156–163, 165 inverse, 157–158, 160–165 MixColumns transformation, 150, 153–155, 162–165, 182 ShiftRows transformation, 150, 153–155, 161–162 SubBytes (substitute bytes) transformation, 150, 153–161 Transparent key control, 417–419 Transport Layer Protocol, SSH, 508–513 Transport Layer Security (TLS), 486, 488, 502–506 alert codes, 504–505 certificate types (client), 505–506 cipher suites, 505 cryptographic computations, 506 message authentication code (MAC), 502 padding, 506 pseudorandom function (PRF), 502–504 Transport-level security, 485–520 HTTPS, 486, 506–508 Secure Shell (SSH), 486, 508–518 Secure Socket Layer (SSL), 486, 488–501 Transport Layer Security (TLS), 486, 488, 502–506 Web considerations, 486–488 Transport mode, IP, 620–622, 631–636 Transposition cipher techniques, 53–55 Trap-door one-way function, 276–277 Triple data encryption algorithm (TDEA), 77 Triple data encryption standard (3DES), 77, 196–198 True random number generator (TRNG), 219, 221–222, 237–238 Trust, PGP fields, 583–587 Tunnel, SSH, 515–516 Tunnel mode, IP, 620–622, 631–636 12-bit processor, AES implementation of, 177–178

U Uniform distribution of bits, 220 Unpredictability criteria, PRNG, 221, 224–225 User Authentication Protocol, SSH, 509, 513–514 User authentication, 444–484 asymmetric encryption used for, 470–472 federated identity management, 472–478 Kerberos, 452–469, 481–484 mutual, 447–451, 470–471 one-way, 448, 451–452, 471–472 principles of, 445–446 remote, 445–452, 470–472 replay attacks and, 447–448, 450 symmetric encryption used for, 448–452 User certificates, X.509, 432–434

719

V VeriSign certificates, S/MIME, 601–603 Vernam cipher, 51–52 Version number, TLS, 502 Vigenère cipher, 49–51 Virus detection, hash functions for, 332–333

W WAP, see Wireless Application Protocol (WAP) Web resources, 4–5 Web security, 485–488, 506–507. See also Internet security Wi–Fi Protected Access (WPA), 522–523, 529 Wireless application environment (WAE), WAP, 547–548 Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), 522, 543–550, 560–563 architecture, 546–547 end-to-end security, 560–563 programming model, 544 protocol, 543–550 security discovery and services, 547 wireless application environment (WAE), 547–548 wireless markup language (WML), 544–546 wireless session protocol (WSP), 549 wireless transaction protocol (WTP), 549–550 Wireless Ethernet Compatibility Alliance (WECA), 523 Wireless markup language (WML), WAP, 544–546 Wireless network security, 521–566 IEEE 802.11 LAN, 523–528 IEEE 802.11i LAN, 529–543 Robust Security Network (RSN), 529–530 Wi-Fi Protected Access (WPA), 522–523, 529 Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP), 529 Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), 522, 543–550, 560–563 Wireless Transport Layer Security (WTLS), 522, 550–560 Wireless session protocol (WSP), WAP, 549 Wireless transaction protocol (WTP), WAP, 549–550 Wireless Transport Layer Security (WTLS), 522, 550–560 Alert Protocol, 554–555 authentication, 557–558 Change Cipher Spec Protocol, 553–554 cryptographic algorithms, 557–560 Handshake Protocol, 555–557 key exchange, 558–559 master key generation, 559–560 protocol architecture, 552–557 pseudorandom function (PRF), 559 Record Protocol, 552–553 sessions and connections, 551–552

X X.509 ITU-T recommendation, 429–439 certificate authority (CA), 430–434, 437 certificates, 429–437 public–key infrastructure (PKIX), 437–439 version 3 format, 435–437 X.800 ITU-T Recommendation, 15, 19–25 active and passive attacks, 15 security mechanism, 23–25 security services, 19–22 XTS-AES mode, 210–214 block-oriented storage devices using, 210–214 ciphertext–stealing technique, 213–214 sector (data unit) operation, 213–214 single-block operation, 211–212 storage encryption requirements, 210–211

This page intentionally left blank

PART 6: SYSTEM SECURITY CHAPTER

INTRUDERS 20.1 Intruders Intruder Behavior Patterns Intrusion Techniques 20.2 Intrusion Detection Audit Records Statistical Anomaly Detection Rule-Based Intrusion Detection The Base-Rate Fallacy Distributed Intrusion Detection Honeypots Intrusion Detection Exchange Format 20.3 Password Management Password Protection Password Selection Strategies 20.4 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 20.5 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems Appendix 20A The Base-Rate Fallacy

20-1

20-2

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

They agreed that Graham should set the test for Charles Mabledene. It was neither more nor less than that Dragon should get Stern’s code. If he had the ‘in’ at Utting which he claimed to have this should be possible, only loyalty to Moscow Centre would prevent it. If he got the key to the code he would prove his loyalty to London Central beyond a doubt. —Talking to Strange Men, Ruth Rendell

KEY POINTS ◆ ◆

◆ ◆

Unauthorized intrusion into a computer system or network is one of the most serious threats to computer security. Intrusion detection systems have been developed to provide early warning of an intrusion so that defensive action can be taken to prevent or minimize damage. Intrusion detection involves detecting unusual patterns of activity or patterns of activity that are known to correlate with intrusions. One important element of intrusion prevention is password management, with the goal of preventing unauthorized users from having access to the passwords of others.

A significant security problem for networked systems is hostile, or at least unwanted, trespass by users or software. User trespass can take the form of unauthorized logon to a machine or, in the case of an authorized user, acquisition of privileges or performance of actions beyond those that have been authorized. Software trespass can take the form of a virus, worm, or Trojan horse. All these attacks relate to network security because system entry can be achieved by means of a network. However, these attacks are not confined to network-based attacks. A user with access to a local terminal may attempt trespass without using an intermediate network. A virus or Trojan horse may be introduced into a system by means of an optical disc. Only the worm is a uniquely network phenomenon. Thus, system trespass is an area in which the concerns of network security and computer security overlap. Because the focus of this book is network security, we do not attempt a comprehensive analysis of either the attacks or the security countermeasures related to system trespass. Instead, in this Part we present a broad overview of these concerns. This chapter covers the subject of intruders. First, we examine the nature of the attack and then look at strategies intended for prevention and, failing that, detection. Next we examine the related topic of password management.

20.1 / INTRUDERS

20-3

20.1 INTRUDERS One of the two most publicized threats to security is the intruder (the other is viruses), often referred to as a hacker or cracker. In an important early study of intrusion, Anderson [ANDE80] identified three classes of intruders: • Masquerader: An individual who is not authorized to use the computer and who penetrates a system’s access controls to exploit a legitimate user’s account • Misfeasor: A legitimate user who accesses data, programs, or resources for which such access is not authorized, or who is authorized for such access but misuses his or her privileges • Clandestine user: An individual who seizes supervisory control of the system and uses this control to evade auditing and access controls or to suppress audit collection The masquerader is likely to be an outsider; the misfeasor generally is an insider; and the clandestine user can be either an outsider or an insider. Intruder attacks range from the benign to the serious. At the benign end of the scale, there are many people who simply wish to explore internets and see what is out there. At the serious end are individuals who are attempting to read privileged data, perform unauthorized modifications to data, or disrupt the system. [GRAN04] lists the following examples of intrusion: • • • • • • • • • •

Performing a remote root compromise of an e-mail server Defacing a Web server Guessing and cracking passwords Copying a database containing credit card numbers Viewing sensitive data, including payroll records and medical information, without authorization Running a packet sniffer on a workstation to capture usernames and passwords Using a permission error on an anonymous FTP server to distribute pirated software and music files Dialing into an unsecured modem and gaining internal network access Posing as an executive, calling the help desk, resetting the executive’s e-mail password, and learning the new password Using an unattended, logged-in workstation without permission

Intruder Behavior Patterns The techniques and behavior patterns of intruders are constantly shifting, to exploit newly discovered weaknesses and to evade detection and countermeasures. Even so, intruders typically follow one of a number of recognizable behavior patterns, and these patterns typically differ from those of ordinary users. In the following, we look

20-4

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

at three broad examples of intruder behavior patterns, to give the reader some feel for the challenge facing the security administrator. Table 20.1, based on [RADC04], summarizes the behavior. HACKERS Traditionally, those who hack into computers do so for the thrill of it or for status. The hacking community is a strong meritocracy in which status is determined by level of competence. Thus, attackers often look for targets of opportunity and then share the information with others. A typical example is a break-in at a large financial institution reported in [RADC04]. The intruder took advantage of the fact that the corporate network was running unprotected services, some of which were not even needed. In this case, the key to the break-in was the pcAnywhere application. The manufacturer, Symantec, advertises this program as a remote control solution that enables secure connection to remote devices. But the attacker had an easy time gaining access to pcAnywhere; the administrator used the same three-letter username and password for the program. In this case, there was no intrusion detection system on the 700-node corporate network. The intruder was only discovered when a vice president walked into her office and saw the cursor moving files around on her Windows workstation. Table 20.1 Some Examples of Intruder Patterns of Behavior (a) Hacker 1. Select the target using IP lookup tools such as NSLookup, Dig, and others. 2. Map network for accessible services using tools such as NMAP. 3. Identify potentially vulnerable services (in this case, pcAnywhere). 4. Brute force (guess) pcAnywhere password. 5. Install remote administration tool called DameWare. 6. Wait for administrator to log on and capture his password. 7. Use that password to access remainder of network. (b) Criminal Enterprise 1. Act quickly and precisely to make their activities harder to detect. 2. Exploit perimeter through vulnerable ports. 3. Use Trojan horses (hidden software) to leave back doors for reentry. 4. Use sniffers to capture passwords. 5. Do not stick around until noticed. 6. Make few or no mistakes. (c) Internal Threat 1. Create network accounts for themselves and their friends. 2. Access accounts and applications they wouldn’t normally use for their daily jobs. 3. E-mail former and prospective employers. 4. Conduct furtive instant-messaging chats. 5. Visit Web sites that cater to disgruntled employees, such as f’dcompany.com. 6. Perform large downloads and file copying. 7. Access the network during off hours.

20.1 / INTRUDERS

20-5

Benign intruders might be tolerable, although they do consume resources and may slow performance for legitimate users. However, there is no way in advance to know whether an intruder will be benign or malign. Consequently, even for systems with no particularly sensitive resources, there is a motivation to control this problem. Intrusion detection systems (IDSs) and intrusion prevention systems (IPSs) are designed to counter this type of hacker threat. In addition to using such systems, organizations can consider restricting remote logons to specific IP addresses and/or use virtual private network technology. One of the results of the growing awareness of the intruder problem has been the establishment of a number of computer emergency response teams (CERTs). These cooperative ventures collect information about system vulnerabilities and disseminate it to systems managers. Hackers also routinely read CERT reports. Thus, it is important for system administrators to quickly insert all software patches to discovered vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, given the complexity of many IT systems, and the rate at which patches are released, this is increasingly difficult to achieve without automated updating. Even then, there are problems caused by incompatibilities resulting from the updated software. Hence the need for multiple layers of defense in managing security threats to IT systems. CRIMINALS Organized groups of hackers have become a widespread and common threat to Internet-based systems. These groups can be in the employ of a corporation or government but often are loosely affiliated gangs of hackers. Typically, these gangs are young, often Eastern European, Russian, or southeast Asian hackers who do business on the Web [ANTE06]. They meet in underground forums with names like DarkMarket.org and theftservices.com to trade tips and data and coordinate attacks. A common target is a credit card file at an e-commerce server. Attackers attempt to gain root access. The card numbers are used by organized crime gangs to purchase expensive items and are then posted to carder sites, where others can access and use the account numbers; this obscures usage patterns and complicates investigation. Whereas traditional hackers look for targets of opportunity, criminal hackers usually have specific targets, or at least classes of targets in mind. Once a site is penetrated, the attacker acts quickly, scooping up as much valuable information as possible and exiting. IDSs and IPSs can also be used for these types of attackers, but may be less effective because of the quick in-and-out nature of the attack. For e-commerce sites, database encryption should be used for sensitive customer information, especially credit cards. For hosted e-commerce sites (provided by an outsider service), the e-commerce organization should make use of a dedicated server (not used to support multiple customers) and closely monitor the provider’s security services. INSIDER ATTACKS Insider attacks are among the most difficult to detect and prevent. Employees already have access and knowledge about the structure and content of corporate databases. Insider attacks can be motivated by revenge or simply a feeling of entitlement. An example of the former is the case of Kenneth Patterson, fired from his position as data communications manager for American Eagle Outfitters. Patterson disabled the company’s ability to process credit card purchases during five days of the holiday season of 2002. As for a sense of entitlement, there have

20-6

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

always been many employees who felt entitled to take extra office supplies for home use, but this now extends to corporate data. An example is that of a vice president of sales for a stock analysis firm who quit to go to a competitor. Before she left, she copied the customer database to take with her. The offender reported feeling no animus toward her former employee; she simply wanted the data because it would be useful to her. Although IDS and IPS facilities can be useful in countering insider attacks, other more direct approaches are of higher priority. Examples include the following: • Enforce least privilege, only allowing access to the resources employees need to do their job. • Set logs to see what users access and what commands they are entering. • Protect sensitive resources with strong authentication. • Upon termination, delete employee’s computer and network access. • Upon termination, make a mirror image of employee’s hard drive before reissuing it. That evidence might be needed if your company information turns up at a competitor. In this section, we look at the techniques used for intrusion. Then we examine ways to detect intrusion.

Intrusion Techniques The objective of the intruder is to gain access to a system or to increase the range of privileges accessible on a system. Most initial attacks use system or software vulnerabilities that allow a user to execute code that opens a back door into the system. Alternatively, the intruder attempts to acquire information that should have been protected. In some cases, this information is in the form of a user password. With knowledge of some other user’s password, an intruder can log in to a system and exercise all the privileges accorded to the legitimate user. Typically, a system must maintain a file that associates a password with each authorized user. If such a file is stored with no protection, then it is an easy matter to gain access to it and learn passwords. The password file can be protected in one of two ways: • One-way function: The system stores only the value of a function based on the user’s password. When the user presents a password, the system transforms that password and compares it with the stored value. In practice, the system usually performs a one-way transformation (not reversible) in which the password is used to generate a key for the one-way function and in which a fixed-length output is produced. • Access control: Access to the password file is limited to one or a very few accounts. If one or both of these countermeasures are in place, some effort is needed for a potential intruder to learn passwords. On the basis of a survey of the literature and

20.1 / INTRUDERS

20-7

interviews with a number of password crackers, [ALVA90] reports the following techniques for learning passwords: 1. Try default passwords used with standard accounts that are shipped with the system. Many administrators do not bother to change these defaults. 2. Exhaustively try all short passwords (those of one to three characters). 3. Try words in the system’s online dictionary or a list of likely passwords. Examples of the latter are readily available on hacker bulletin boards. 4. Collect information about users, such as their full names, the names of their spouse and children, pictures in their office, and books in their office that are related to hobbies. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Try users’ phone numbers, Social Security numbers, and room numbers. Try all legitimate license plate numbers for this state. Use a Trojan horse (described in Chapter 21) to bypass restrictions on access. Tap the line between a remote user and the host system.

The first six methods are various ways of guessing a password. If an intruder has to verify the guess by attempting to log in, it is a tedious and easily countered means of attack. For example, a system can simply reject any login after three password attempts, thus requiring the intruder to reconnect to the host to try again. Under these circumstances, it is not practical to try more than a handful of passwords. However, the intruder is unlikely to try such crude methods. For example, if an intruder can gain access with a low level of privileges to an encrypted password file, then the strategy would be to capture that file and then use the encryption mechanism of that particular system at leisure until a valid password that provided greater privileges was discovered. Guessing attacks are feasible, and indeed highly effective, when a large number of guesses can be attempted automatically and each guess verified, without the guessing process being detectable. Later in this chapter, we have much to say about thwarting guessing attacks. The seventh method of attack listed earlier, the Trojan horse, can be particularly difficult to counter. An example of a program that bypasses access controls was cited in [ALVA90]. A low-privilege user produced a game program and invited the system operator to use it in his or her spare time. The program did indeed play a game, but in the background it also contained code to copy the password file, which was unencrypted but access protected, into the user’s file. Because the game was running under the operator’s high-privilege mode, it was able to gain access to the password file. The eighth attack listed, line tapping, is a matter of physical security. Other intrusion techniques do not require learning a password. Intruders can get access to a system by exploiting attacks such as buffer overflows on a program that runs with certain privileges. Privilege escalation can be done this way as well. We turn now to a discussion of the two principal countermeasures: detection and prevention. Detection is concerned with learning of an attack, either before or after its success. Prevention is a challenging security goal and an uphill battle at all times. The difficulty stems from the fact that the defender must attempt to thwart all possible attacks, whereas the attacker is free to try to find the weakest link in the defense chain and attack at that point.

20-8

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

20.2 INTRUSION DETECTION Inevitably, the best intrusion prevention system will fail. A system’s second line of defense is intrusion detection, and this has been the focus of much research in recent years. This interest is motivated by a number of considerations, including the following: 1. If an intrusion is detected quickly enough, the intruder can be identified and ejected from the system before any damage is done or any data are compromised. Even if the detection is not sufficiently timely to preempt the intruder, the sooner that the intrusion is detected, the less the amount of damage and the more quickly that recovery can be achieved. 2. An effective intrusion detection system can serve as a deterrent, so acting to prevent intrusions. 3. Intrusion detection enables the collection of information about intrusion techniques that can be used to strengthen the intrusion prevention facility. Intrusion detection is based on the assumption that the behavior of the intruder differs from that of a legitimate user in ways that can be quantified. Of course, we cannot expect that there will be a crisp, exact distinction between an attack by an intruder and the normal use of resources by an authorized user. Rather, we must expect that there will be some overlap. Figure 20.1 suggests, in very abstract terms, the nature of the task confronting the designer of an intrusion detection system. Although the typical behavior of an

Probability density function

Profile of intruder behavior

Profile of authorized user behavior

Overlap in observed or expected behavior

Average behavior Average behavior of authorized user of intruder

Measurable behavior parameter

Figure 20.1 Profiles of Behavior of Intruders and Authorized Users

20.2 / INTRUSION DETECTION

20-9

intruder differs from the typical behavior of an authorized user, there is an overlap in these behaviors. Thus, a loose interpretation of intruder behavior, which will catch more intruders, will also lead to a number of “false positives,” or authorized users identified as intruders. On the other hand, an attempt to limit false positives by a tight interpretation of intruder behavior will lead to an increase in false negatives, or intruders not identified as intruders. Thus, there is an element of compromise and art in the practice of intrusion detection. In Anderson’s study [ANDE80], it was postulated that one could, with reasonable confidence, distinguish between a masquerader and a legitimate user. Patterns of legitimate user behavior can be established by observing past history, and significant deviation from such patterns can be detected. Anderson suggests that the task of detecting a misfeasor (legitimate user performing in an unauthorized fashion) is more difficult, in that the distinction between abnormal and normal behavior may be small. Anderson concluded that such violations would be undetectable solely through the search for anomalous behavior. However, misfeasor behavior might nevertheless be detectable by intelligent definition of the class of conditions that suggest unauthorized use. Finally, the detection of the clandestine user was felt to be beyond the scope of purely automated techniques. These observations, which were made in 1980, remain true today. [PORR92] identifies the following approaches to intrusion detection: 1. Statistical anomaly detection: Involves the collection of data relating to the behavior of legitimate users over a period of time. Then statistical tests are applied to observed behavior to determine with a high level of confidence whether that behavior is not legitimate user behavior. a. Threshold detection: This approach involves defining thresholds, independent of user, for the frequency of occurrence of various events. b. Profile based: A profile of the activity of each user is developed and used to detect changes in the behavior of individual accounts. 2. Rule-based detection: Involves an attempt to define a set of rules that can be used to decide that a given behavior is that of an intruder. a. Anomaly detection: Rules are developed to detect deviation from previous usage patterns. b. Penetration identification: An expert system approach that searches for suspicious behavior. In a nutshell, statistical approaches attempt to define normal, or expected, behavior, whereas rule-based approaches attempt to define proper behavior. In terms of the types of attackers listed earlier, statistical anomaly detection is effective against masqueraders, who are unlikely to mimic the behavior patterns of the accounts they appropriate. On the other hand, such techniques may be unable to deal with misfeasors. For such attacks, rule-based approaches may be able to recognize events and sequences that, in context, reveal penetration. In practice, a system may exhibit a combination of both approaches to be effective against a broad range of attacks.

20-10

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

Audit Records A fundamental tool for intrusion detection is the audit record. Some record of ongoing activity by users must be maintained as input to an intrusion detection system. Basically, two plans are used: • Native audit records: Virtually all multiuser operating systems include accounting software that collects information on user activity. The advantage of using this information is that no additional collection software is needed. The disadvantage is that the native audit records may not contain the needed information or may not contain it in a convenient form. • Detection-specific audit records: A collection facility can be implemented that generates audit records containing only that information required by the intrusion detection system. One advantage of such an approach is that it could be made vendor independent and ported to a variety of systems. The disadvantage is the extra overhead involved in having, in effect, two accounting packages running on a machine. A good example of detection-specific audit records is one developed by Dorothy Denning [DENN87]. Each audit record contains the following fields: • Subject: Initiators of actions. A subject is typically a terminal user but might also be a process acting on behalf of users or groups of users. All activity arises through commands issued by subjects. Subjects may be grouped into different access classes, and these classes may overlap. • Action: Operation performed by the subject on or with an object; for example, login, read, perform I/O, execute. • Object: Receptors of actions. Examples include files, programs, messages, records, terminals, printers, and user- or program-created structures. When a subject is the recipient of an action, such as electronic mail, then that subject is considered an object. Objects may be grouped by type. Object granularity may vary by object type and by environment. For example, database actions may be audited for the database as a whole or at the record level. • Exception-Condition: Denotes which, if any, exception condition is raised on return. • Resource-Usage: A list of quantitative elements in which each element gives the amount used of some resource (e.g., number of lines printed or displayed, number of records read or written, processor time, I/O units used, session elapsed time). • Time-Stamp: Unique time-and-date stamp identifying when the action took place. Most user operations are made up of a number of elementary actions. For example, a file copy involves the execution of the user command, which includes doing access validation and setting up the copy, plus the read from one file, plus the write to another file. Consider the command COPY GAME.EXE TO GAME.EXE

20.2 / INTRUSION DETECTION

20-11

issued by Smith to copy an executable file GAME from the current directory to the directory. The following audit records may be generated: Smith execute Smith

read

Smith execute

COPY.EXE

0

CPU = 00002

11058721678

GAME.EXE

0

RECORDS = 0

11058721679

COPY.EXE

write-viol

RECORDS = 0

11058721680

In this case, the copy is aborted because Smith does not have write permission to . The decomposition of a user operation into elementary actions has three advantages: 1. Because objects are the protectable entities in a system, the use of elementary actions enables an audit of all behavior affecting an object. Thus, the system can detect attempted subversions of access controls (by noting an abnormality in the number of exception conditions returned) and can detect successful subversions by noting an abnormality in the set of objects accessible to the subject. 2. Single-object, single-action audit records simplify the model and the implementation. 3. Because of the simple, uniform structure of the detection-specific audit records, it may be relatively easy to obtain this information or at least part of it by a straightforward mapping from existing native audit records to the detection-specific audit records.

Statistical Anomaly Detection As was mentioned, statistical anomaly detection techniques fall into two broad categories: threshold detection and profile-based systems. Threshold detection involves counting the number of occurrences of a specific event type over an interval of time. If the count surpasses what is considered a reasonable number that one might expect to occur, then intrusion is assumed. Threshold analysis, by itself, is a crude and ineffective detector of even moderately sophisticated attacks. Both the threshold and the time interval must be determined. Because of the variability across users, such thresholds are likely to generate either a lot of false positives or a lot of false negatives. However, simple threshold detectors may be useful in conjunction with more sophisticated techniques. Profile-based anomaly detection focuses on characterizing the past behavior of individual users or related groups of users and then detecting significant deviations. A profile may consist of a set of parameters, so that deviation on just a single parameter may not be sufficient in itself to signal an alert. The foundation of this approach is an analysis of audit records. The audit records provide input to the intrusion detection function in two ways. First, the designer must decide on a number of quantitative metrics that can be used to measure user behavior. An analysis of audit records over a period of time can be used to

20-12

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

determine the activity profile of the average user. Thus, the audit records serve to define typical behavior. Second, current audit records are the input used to detect intrusion. That is, the intrusion detection model analyzes incoming audit records to determine deviation from average behavior. Examples of metrics that are useful for profile-based intrusion detection are the following: • Counter: A nonnegative integer that may be incremented but not decremented until it is reset by management action. Typically, a count of certain event types is kept over a particular period of time. Examples include the number of logins by a single user during an hour, the number of times a given command is executed during a single user session, and the number of password failures during a minute. • Gauge: A nonnegative integer that may be incremented or decremented. Typically, a gauge is used to measure the current value of some entity. Examples include the number of logical connections assigned to a user application and the number of outgoing messages queued for a user process. • Interval timer: The length of time between two related events. An example is the length of time between successive logins to an account. • Resource utilization: Quantity of resources consumed during a specified period. Examples include the number of pages printed during a user session and total time consumed by a program execution. Given these general metrics, various tests can be performed to determine whether current activity fits within acceptable limits. [DENN87] lists the following approaches that may be taken: • • • • •

Mean and standard deviation Multivariate Markov process Time series Operational

The simplest statistical test is to measure the mean and standard deviation of a parameter over some historical period. This gives a reflection of the average behavior and its variability. The use of mean and standard deviation is applicable to a wide variety of counters, timers, and resource measures. But these measures, by themselves, are typically too crude for intrusion detection purposes. A multivariate model is based on correlations between two or more variables. Intruder behavior may be characterized with greater confidence by considering such correlations (for example, processor time and resource usage, or login frequency and session elapsed time). A Markov process model is used to establish transition probabilities among various states. As an example, this model might be used to look at transitions between certain commands.

20.2 / INTRUSION DETECTION

20-13

A time series model focuses on time intervals, looking for sequences of events that happen too rapidly or too slowly. A variety of statistical tests can be applied to characterize abnormal timing. Finally, an operational model is based on a judgment of what is considered abnormal, rather than an automated analysis of past audit records. Typically, fixed limits are defined and intrusion is suspected for an observation that is outside the limits. This type of approach works best where intruder behavior can be deduced from certain types of activities. For example, a large number of login attempts over a short period suggests an attempted intrusion. As an example of the use of these various metrics and models, Table 20.2 shows various measures considered or tested for the Stanford Research Institute (SRI) intrusion detection system (IDES) [DENN87, JAVI91, LUNT88]. The main advantage of the use of statistical profiles is that a prior knowledge of security flaws is not required.The detector program learns what is “normal” behavior and then looks for deviations. The approach is not based on system-dependent characteristics and vulnerabilities. Thus, it should be readily portable among a variety of systems.

Rule-Based Intrusion Detection Rule-based techniques detect intrusion by observing events in the system and applying a set of rules that lead to a decision regarding whether a given pattern of activity is or is not suspicious. In very general terms, we can characterize all approaches as focusing on either anomaly detection or penetration identification, although there is some overlap in these approaches. Rule-based anomaly detection is similar in terms of its approach and strengths to statistical anomaly detection. With the rule-based approach, historical audit records are analyzed to identify usage patterns and to generate automatically rules that describe those patterns. Rules may represent past behavior patterns of users, programs, privileges, time slots, terminals, and so on. Current behavior is then observed, and each transaction is matched against the set of rules to determine if it conforms to any historically observed pattern of behavior. As with statistical anomaly detection, rule-based anomaly detection does not require knowledge of security vulnerabilities within the system. Rather, the scheme is based on observing past behavior and, in effect, assuming that the future will be like the past. In order for this approach to be effective, a rather large database of rules will be needed. For example, a scheme described in [VACC89] contains anywhere from 104 to 106 rules. Rule-based penetration identification takes a very different approach to intrusion detection. The key feature of such systems is the use of rules for identifying known penetrations or penetrations that would exploit known weaknesses. Rules can also be defined that identify suspicious behavior, even when the behavior is within the bounds of established patterns of usage. Typically, the rules used in these systems are specific to the machine and operating system. The most fruitful approach to developing such rules is to analyze attack tools and scripts collected on the Internet. These rules can be supplemented with rules generated by knowledgeable security personnel. In this latter case, the normal procedure is to interview

20-14

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

Table 20.2 Measures That May Be Used for Intrusion Detection Measure

Model

Type of Intrusion Detected

Login and Session Activity Login frequency by day and time

Mean and standard deviation

Intruders may be likely to log in during off-hours.

Frequency of login at different locations

Mean and standard deviation

Intruders may log in from a location that a particular user rarely or never uses.

Time since last login

Operational

Break-in on a “dead” account.

Elapsed time per session

Mean and standard deviation

Significant deviations might indicate masquerader.

Quantity of output to location

Mean and standard deviation

Excessive amounts of data transmitted to remote locations could signify leakage of sensitive data.

Session resource utilization

Mean and standard deviation

Unusual processor or I/O levels could signal an intruder.

Password failures at login

Operational

Attempted break-in by password guessing.

Failures to login from specified terminals

Operational

Attempted break-in.

Command or Program Execution Activity Execution frequency

Mean and standard deviation

May detect intruders, who are likely to use different commands, or a successful penetration by a legitimate user, who has gained access to privileged commands.

Program resource utilization

Mean and standard deviation

An abnormal value might suggest injection of a virus or Trojan horse, which performs side-effects that increase I/O or processor utilization.

Execution denials

Operational model

May detect penetration attempt by individual user who seeks higher privileges.

File Access Activity Read, write, create, delete frequency

Mean and standard deviation

Abnormalities for read and write access for individual users may signify masquerading or browsing.

Records read, written

Mean and standard deviation

Abnormality could signify an attempt to obtain sensitive data by inference and aggregation.

Failure count for read, write, create, delete

Operational

May detect users who persistently attempt to access unauthorized files.

system administrators and security analysts to collect a suite of known penetration scenarios and key events that threaten the security of the target system. A simple example of the type of rules that can be used is found in NIDX, an early system that used heuristic rules that can be used to assign degrees of suspicion to activities [BAUE88]. Example heuristics are the following: 1. Users should not read files in other users’ personal directories. 2. Users must not write other users’ files.

20.2 / INTRUSION DETECTION

20-15

3. Users who log in after hours often access the same files they used earlier. 4. Users do not generally open disk devices directly but rely on higher-level operating system utilities. 5. Users should not be logged in more than once to the same system. 6. Users do not make copies of system programs. The penetration identification scheme used in IDES is representative of the strategy followed. Audit records are examined as they are generated, and they are matched against the rule base. If a match is found, then the user’s suspicion rating is increased. If enough rules are matched, then the rating will pass a threshold that results in the reporting of an anomaly. The IDES approach is based on an examination of audit records. A weakness of this plan is its lack of flexibility. For a given penetration scenario, there may be a number of alternative audit record sequences that could be produced, each varying from the others slightly or in subtle ways. It may be difficult to pin down all these variations in explicit rules. Another method is to develop a higherlevel model independent of specific audit records. An example of this is a state transition model known as USTAT [ILGU93]. USTAT deals in general actions rather than the detailed specific actions recorded by the UNIX auditing mechanism. USTAT is implemented on a SunOS system that provides audit records on 239 events. Of these, only 28 are used by a preprocessor, which maps these onto 10 general actions (Table 20.3). Using just these actions and the parameters that are invoked with each action, a state transition diagram is developed that characterizes suspicious activity. Because a number of different auditable events map into a smaller number of actions, the rule-creation process is simpler. Furthermore, the state transition diagram model is easily modified to accommodate newly learned intrusion behaviors. Table 20.3 USTAT Actions versus SunOS Event Types USTAT Action

SunOS Event Type

Read

open_r, open_rc, open_rtc, open_rwc, open_rwtc, open_rt, open_rw, open_rwt

Write

truncate, ftruncate, creat, open_rtc, open_rwc, open_rwtc, open_rt, open_rw, open_rwt, open_w, open_wt, open_wc, open_wct

Create

mkdir, creat, open_rc, open_rtc, open_rwc, open_rwtc, open_wc, open_wtc, mknod

Delete

rmdir, unlink

Execute

exec, execve

Exit

exit

Modify_Owner

chown, fchown

Modify_Perm

chmod, fchmod

Rename

rename

Hardlink

link

20-16

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

The Base-Rate Fallacy To be of practical use, an intrusion detection system should detect a substantial percentage of intrusions while keeping the false alarm rate at an acceptable level. If only a modest percentage of actual intrusions are detected, the system provides a false sense of security. On the other hand, if the system frequently triggers an alert when there is no intrusion (a false alarm), then either system managers will begin to ignore the alarms, or much time will be wasted analyzing the false alarms. Unfortunately, because of the nature of the probabilities involved, it is very difficult to meet the standard of high rate of detections with a low rate of false alarms. In general, if the actual numbers of intrusions is low compared to the number of legitimate uses of a system, then the false alarm rate will be high unless the test is extremely discriminating. A study of existing intrusion detection systems, reported in [AXEL00], indicated that current systems have not overcome the problem of the base-rate fallacy. See Appendix 20A for a brief background on the mathematics of this problem.

Distributed Intrusion Detection Until recently, work on intrusion detection systems focused on single-system standalone facilities. The typical organization, however, needs to defend a distributed collection of hosts supported by a LAN or internetwork. Although it is possible to mount a defense by using stand-alone intrusion detection systems on each host, a more effective defense can be achieved by coordination and cooperation among intrusion detection systems across the network. Porras points out the following major issues in the design of a distributed intrusion detection system [PORR92]: • A distributed intrusion detection system may need to deal with different audit record formats. In a heterogeneous environment, different systems will employ different native audit collection systems and, if using intrusion detection, may employ different formats for security-related audit records. • One or more nodes in the network will serve as collection and analysis points for the data from the systems on the network. Thus, either raw audit data or summary data must be transmitted across the network. Therefore, there is a requirement to assure the integrity and confidentiality of these data. Integrity is required to prevent an intruder from masking his or her activities by altering the transmitted audit information. Confidentiality is required because the transmitted audit information could be valuable. • Either a centralized or decentralized architecture can be used. With a centralized architecture, there is a single central point of collection and analysis of all audit data. This eases the task of correlating incoming reports but creates a potential bottleneck and single point of failure. With a decentralized architecture, there are more than one analysis centers, but these must coordinate their activities and exchange information.

20.2 / INTRUSION DETECTION LAN monitor

Host

20-17

Host Agent module

Router

WAN Central manager Manager module

Figure 20.2 Architecture for Distributed Intrusion Detection

A good example of a distributed intrusion detection system is one developed at the University of California at Davis [HEBE92, SNAP91]. Figure 20.2 shows the overall architecture, which consists of three main components: • Host agent module: An audit collection module operating as a background process on a monitored system. Its purpose is to collect data on securityrelated events on the host and transmit these to the central manager. • LAN monitor agent module: Operates in the same fashion as a host agent module except that it analyzes LAN traffic and reports the results to the central manager. • Central manager module: Receives reports from LAN monitor and host agents and processes and correlates these reports to detect intrusion. The scheme is designed to be independent of any operating system or system auditing implementation. Figure 20.3 [SNAP91] shows the general approach that is taken. The agent captures each audit record produced by the native audit collection system. A filter is applied that retains only those records that are of security interest. These records are then reformatted into a standardized format referred to as the host audit record (HAR). Next, a template-driven logic module analyzes the records for suspicious activity. At the lowest level, the agent scans for notable events that are of interest independent of any past events. Examples include failed file accesses, accessing system files, and changing a file’s access control. At the next higher level, the agent looks for sequences of events, such as known attack patterns (signatures). Finally, the agent looks for anomalous behavior of an individual user based on a historical profile of that user, such as number of programs executed, number of files accessed, and the like.

20-18

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS OS audit information

Central manager

Filter

Host audit record

Logic Alerts

Templates

Notable activity Signatures Noteworthy sessions

Query/ response

Agent protocol machine

Modifications

Figure 20.3 Agent Architecture

When suspicious activity is detected, an alert is sent to the central manager. The central manager includes an expert system that can draw inferences from received data. The manager may also query individual systems for copies of HARs to correlate with those from other agents. The LAN monitor agent also supplies information to the central manager. The LAN monitor agent audits host-host connections, services used, and volume of traffic. It searches for significant events, such as sudden changes in network load, the use of security-related services, and network activities such as rlogin. The architecture depicted in Figures 20.2 and 20.3 is quite general and flexible. It offers a foundation for a machine-independent approach that can expand from stand-alone intrusion detection to a system that is able to correlate activity from a number of sites and networks to detect suspicious activity that would otherwise remain undetected.

Honeypots A relatively recent innovation in intrusion detection technology is the honeypot. Honeypots are decoy systems that are designed to lure a potential attacker away from critical systems. Honeypots are designed to • divert an attacker from accessing critical systems • collect information about the attacker’s activity • encourage the attacker to stay on the system long enough for administrators to respond

20.3 / PASSWORD MANAGEMENT

20-19

These systems are filled with fabricated information designed to appear valuable but that a legitimate user of the system wouldn’t access. Thus, any access to the honeypot is suspect. The system is instrumented with sensitive monitors and event loggers that detect these accesses and collect information about the attacker’s activities. Because any attack against the honeypot is made to seem successful, administrators have time to mobilize and log and track the attacker without ever exposing productive systems. Initial efforts involved a single honeypot computer with IP addresses designed to attract hackers. More recent research has focused on building entire honeypot networks that emulate an enterprise, possibly with actual or simulated traffic and data. Once hackers are within the network, administrators can observe their behavior in detail and figure out defenses.

Intrusion Detection Exchange Format To facilitate the development of distributed intrusion detection systems that can function across a wide range of platforms and environments, standards are needed to support interoperability. Such standards are the focus of the IETF Intrusion Detection Working Group. The purpose of the working group is to define data formats and exchange procedures for sharing information of interest to intrusion detection and response systems and to management systems that may need to interact with them. The outputs of this working group include: 1. A requirements document, which describes the high-level functional requirements for communication between intrusion detection systems and requirements for communication between intrusion detection systems and with management systems, including the rationale for those requirements. Scenarios will be used to illustrate the requirements. 2. A common intrusion language specification, which describes data formats that satisfy the requirements. 3. A framework document, which identifies existing protocols best used for communication between intrusion detection systems, and describes how the devised data formats relate to them. As of this writing, all of these documents are in an Internet-draft document stage.

20.3 PASSWORD MANAGEMENT Password Protection The front line of defense against intruders is the password system. Virtually all multiuser systems require that a user provide not only a name or identifier (ID) but also a password. The password serves to authenticate the ID of the individual logging on to the system. In turn, the ID provides security in the following ways: • The ID determines whether the user is authorized to gain access to a system. In some systems, only those who already have an ID filed on the system are allowed to gain access.

20-20

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

• The ID determines the privileges accorded to the user. A few users may have supervisory or “superuser” status that enables them to read files and perform functions that are especially protected by the operating system. Some systems have guest or anonymous accounts, and users of these accounts have more limited privileges than others. • The ID is used in what is referred to as discretionary access control. For example, by listing the IDs of the other users, a user may grant permission to them to read files owned by that user. T HE V ULNERABILITY OF PASSWORDS To understand the nature of the threat to password-based systems, let us consider a scheme that is widely used on UNIX, in which passwords are never stored in the clear. Rather, the following procedure is employed (Figure 20.4a). Each user selects a password of up to eight printable characters in length. This is converted into a 56-bit value (using 7-bit ASCII) that serves as the key input to an encryption routine. The encryption routine, known as crypt(3), is based on DES. The DES algorithm is modified using a 12-bit “salt” value. Typically, this value is related to the time at which the password is assigned to the user. The modified DES algorithm is exercised with a data input consisting of a 64-bit block of zeros. The output of the algorithm then serves as input for a second encryption. This process is repeated for a total of 25 encryptions. The resulting 64-bit output is then translated into an 11-character sequence. The hashed password is then stored, together with a plaintext copy of the salt, in the password file for the corresponding user ID. This method has been shown to be secure against a variety of cryptanalytic attacks [WAGN00]. The salt serves three purposes: • It prevents duplicate passwords from being visible in the password file. Even if two users choose the same password, those passwords will be assigned at different times. Hence, the “extended” passwords of the two users will differ. • It effectively increases the length of the password without requiring the user to remember two additional characters. Hence, the number of possible passwords is increased by a factor of 4096, increasing the difficulty of guessing a password. • It prevents the use of a hardware implementation of DES, which would ease the difficulty of a brute-force guessing attack. When a user attempts to log on to a UNIX system, the user provides an ID and a password. The operating system uses the ID to index into the password file and retrieve the plaintext salt and the encrypted password. The salt and user-supplied password are used as input to the encryption routine. If the result matches the stored value, the password is accepted. The encryption routine is designed to discourage guessing attacks. Software implementations of DES are slow compared to hardware versions, and the use of 25 iterations multiplies the time required by 25. However, since the original design of this algorithm, two changes have occurred. First, newer implementations of the algorithm itself have resulted in speedups. For example, the Morris worm described in Chapter 21 was able to do online password guessing of a few hundred passwords

20.3 / PASSWORD MANAGEMENT salt

20-21

password

Password File 12 bits

56 bits

User id

salt E(pwd, [salt, 0])

• • •

Load

crypt (3)

11 characters

(a) Loading a new password

Password File User id

User id

salt E(pwd, [salt, 0]) salt password

Select

crypt (3)

hashed password

compare

(b) Verifying a password

Figure 20.4 UNIX Password Scheme

in a reasonably short time by using a more efficient encryption algorithm than the standard one stored on the UNIX systems that it attacked. Second, hardware performance continues to increase, so that any software algorithm executes more quickly. Thus, there are two threats to the UNIX password scheme. First, a user can gain access on a machine using a guest account or by some other means and then run a password guessing program, called a password cracker, on that machine. The attacker should be able to check hundreds and perhaps thousands of possible passwords with little resource consumption. In addition, if an opponent is able to obtain a copy of the password file, then a cracker program can be run on another machine

20-22

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

at leisure. This enables the opponent to run through many thousands of possible passwords in a reasonable period. As an example, a password cracker was reported on the Internet in August 1993 [MADS93]. Using a Thinking Machines Corporation parallel computer, a performance of 1560 encryptions per second per vector unit was achieved. With four vector units per processing node (a standard configuration), this works out to 800,000 encryptions per second on a 128-node machine (which is a modest size) and 6.4 million encryptions per second on a 1024-node machine. Even these stupendous guessing rates do not yet make it feasible for an attacker to use a dumb brute-force technique of trying all possible combinations of characters to discover a password. Instead, password crackers rely on the fact that some people choose easily guessable passwords. Some users, when permitted to choose their own password, pick one that is absurdly short.The results of one study at Purdue University are shown in Table 20.4. The study observed password change choices on 54 machines, representing approximately 7000 user accounts. Almost 3% of the passwords were three characters or fewer in length. An attacker could begin the attack by exhaustively testing all possible passwords of length 3 or fewer. A simple remedy is for the system to reject any password choice of fewer than, say, six characters or even to require that all passwords be exactly eight characters in length. Most users would not complain about such a restriction. Password length is only part of the problem. Many people, when permitted to choose their own password, pick a password that is guessable, such as their own name, their street name, a common dictionary word, and so forth. This makes the job of password cracking straightforward. The cracker simply has to test the password file against lists of likely passwords. Because many people use guessable passwords, such a strategy should succeed on virtually all systems. One demonstration of the effectiveness of guessing is reported in [KLEI90]. From a variety of sources, the author collected UNIX password files, containing nearly 14,000 encrypted passwords. The result, which the author rightly characterizes

Table 20.4 Observed Password Lengths [SPAF92a] Length

Number

Fraction of Total

1

55

.004

2

87

.006

3

212

.02

4

449

.03

5

1260

.09

6

3035

.22

7

2917

.21

8

5772

.42

Total

13787

1.0

20.3 / PASSWORD MANAGEMENT

20-23

as frightening, is shown in Table 20.5. In all, nearly one-fourth of the passwords were guessed. The following strategy was used: 1. Try the user’s name, initials, account name, and other relevant personal information. In all, 130 different permutations for each user were tried. 2. Try words from various dictionaries. The author compiled a dictionary of over 60,000 words, including the online dictionary on the system itself, and various other lists as shown. Table 20.5 Passwords Cracked from a Sample Set of 13,797 Accounts [KLEI90] Type of Password

Search Size

Number of Matches

Percentage of Passwords Matched

Cost/Benefit Ratioa

User/account name

130

368

2.7%

2.830

Character sequences

866

22

0.2%

0.025

Numbers

427

9

0.1%

0.021

Chinese

392

56

0.4%

0.143

Place names

628

82

0.6%

0.131

Common names

2239

548

4.0%

0.245

Female names

4280

161

1.2%

0.038

Male names

2866

140

1.0%

0.049

Uncommon names

4955

130

0.9%

0.026

Myths & legends

1246

66

0.5%

0.053

Shakespearean

473

11

0.1%

0.023

Sports terms

238

32

0.2%

0.134

Science fiction

691

59

0.4%

0.085

Movies and actors

99

12

0.1%

0.121

Cartoons

92

9

0.1%

0.098

Famous people

290

55

0.4%

0.190

Phrases and patterns

933

253

1.8%

0.271

Surnames

33

9

0.1%

0.273

Biology

58

1

0.0%

0.017

19683

1027

7.4%

0.052

9018

132

1.0%

0.015

14

2

0.0%

0.143

King James bible

7525

83

0.6%

0.011

Miscellaneous words

3212

54

0.4%

0.017

56

0

0.0%

0.000

2407

19

0.1%

0.007

62727

3340

24.2%

0.053

System dictionary Machine names Mnemonics

Yiddish words Asteroids TOTAL a

Computed as the number of matches divided by the search size. The more words that needed to be tested for a match, the lower the cost/benefit ratio.

20-24

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

3. Try various permutations on the words from step 2. This included making the first letter uppercase or a control character, making the entire word uppercase, reversing the word, changing the letter “o” to the digit “zero,” and so on. These permutations added another 1 million words to the list. 4. Try various capitalization permutations on the words from step 2 that were not considered in step 3. This added almost 2 million additional words to the list. Thus, the test involved in the neighborhood of 3 million words. Using the fastest Thinking Machines implementation listed earlier, the time to encrypt all these words for all possible salt values is under an hour. Keep in mind that such a thorough search could produce a success rate of about 25%, whereas even a single hit may be enough to gain a wide range of privileges on a system. ACCESS CONTROL One way to thwart a password attack is to deny the opponent access to the password file. If the encrypted password portion of the file is accessible only by a privileged user, then the opponent cannot read it without already knowing the password of a privileged user. [SPAF92a] points out several flaws in this strategy: • Many systems, including most UNIX systems, are susceptible to unanticipated break-ins. Once an attacker has gained access by some means, he or she may wish to obtain a collection of passwords in order to use different accounts for different logon sessions to decrease the risk of detection. Or a user with an account may desire another user’s account to access privileged data or to sabotage the system. • An accident of protection might render the password file readable, thus compromising all the accounts. • Some of the users have accounts on other machines in other protection domains, and they use the same password. Thus, if the passwords could be read by anyone on one machine, a machine in another location might be compromised. Thus, a more effective strategy would be to force users to select passwords that are difficult to guess.

Password Selection Strategies The lesson from the two experiments just described (Tables 20.4 and 20.5) is that, left to their own devices, many users choose a password that is too short or too easy to guess. At the other extreme, if users are assigned passwords consisting of eight randomly selected printable characters, password cracking is effectively impossible. But it would be almost as impossible for most users to remember their passwords. Fortunately, even if we limit the password universe to strings of characters that are reasonably memorable, the size of the universe is still too large to permit practical cracking. Our goal, then, is to eliminate guessable passwords while allowing the user to select a password that is memorable. Four basic techniques are in use: • User education • Computer-generated passwords

20.3 / PASSWORD MANAGEMENT

20-25

• Reactive password checking • Proactive password checking Users can be told the importance of using hard-to-guess passwords and can be provided with guidelines for selecting strong passwords. This user education strategy is unlikely to succeed at most installations, particularly where there is a large user population or a lot of turnover. Many users will simply ignore the guidelines. Others may not be good judges of what is a strong password. For example, many users (mistakenly) believe that reversing a word or capitalizing the last letter makes a password unguessable. Computer-generated passwords also have problems. If the passwords are quite random in nature, users will not be able to remember them. Even if the password is pronounceable, the user may have difficulty remembering it and so be tempted to write it down. In general, computer-generated password schemes have a history of poor acceptance by users. FIPS PUB 181 defines one of the best-designed automated password generators. The standard includes not only a description of the approach but also a complete listing of the C source code of the algorithm. The algorithm generates words by forming pronounceable syllables and concatenating them to form a word. A random number generator produces a random stream of characters used to construct the syllables and words. A reactive password checking strategy is one in which the system periodically runs its own password cracker to find guessable passwords. The system cancels any passwords that are guessed and notifies the user. This tactic has a number of drawbacks. First, it is resource intensive if the job is done right. Because a determined opponent who is able to steal a password file can devote full CPU time to the task for hours or even days, an effective reactive password checker is at a distinct disadvantage. Furthermore, any existing passwords remain vulnerable until the reactive password checker finds them. The most promising approach to improved password security is a proactive password checker. In this scheme, a user is allowed to select his or her own password. However, at the time of selection, the system checks to see if the password is allowable and, if not, rejects it. Such checkers are based on the philosophy that, with sufficient guidance from the system, users can select memorable passwords from a fairly large password space that are not likely to be guessed in a dictionary attack. The trick with a proactive password checker is to strike a balance between user acceptability and strength. If the system rejects too many passwords, users will complain that it is too hard to select a password. If the system uses some simple algorithm to define what is acceptable, this provides guidance to password crackers to refine their guessing technique. In the remainder of this subsection, we look at possible approaches to proactive password checking. The first approach is a simple system for rule enforcement. For example, the following rules could be enforced: • All passwords must be at least eight characters long. • In the first eight characters, the passwords must include at least one each of uppercase, lowercase, numeric digits, and punctuation marks.

20-26

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

These rules could be coupled with advice to the user. Although this approach is superior to simply educating users, it may not be sufficient to thwart password crackers. This scheme alerts crackers as to which passwords not to try but may still make it possible to do password cracking. Another possible procedure is simply to compile a large dictionary of possible “bad” passwords. When a user selects a password, the system checks to make sure that it is not on the disapproved list. There are two problems with this approach: • Space: The dictionary must be very large to be effective. For example, the dictionary used in the Purdue study [SPAF92a] occupies more than 30 megabytes of storage. • Time: The time required to search a large dictionary may itself be large. In addition, to check for likely permutations of dictionary words, either those words most be included in the dictionary, making it truly huge, or each search must also involve considerable processing. Two techniques for developing an effective and efficient proactive password checker that is based on rejecting words on a list show promise. One of these develops a Markov model for the generation of guessable passwords [DAVI93]. Figure 20.5 shows a simplified version of such a model. This model shows a language consisting of an alphabet of three characters. The state of the system at any time is the identity of the most recent letter. The value on the transition from one state to another represents the probability that one letter follows another.Thus, the probability that the next letter is b, given that the current letter is a, is 0.5. 0.0

a 0.5 0.2 0.5

1.0

b 0.0

0.4

0.4 c 0.0 M  {3, {a, b, c} , T, 1 } where T

0.0

0.5

0.5

0.2

0.4

0.4

1.0

0.0

0.0

e.g., string probably from this language: abbcacaba e.g., string probably not from this language: aacccbaaa

Figure 20.5 An Example Markov Model

20.3 / PASSWORD MANAGEMENT

20-27

In general, a Markov model is a quadruple [m, A, T, k], where m is the number of states in the model, A is the state space, T is the matrix of transition probabilities, and k is the order of the model. For a kth-order model, the probability of making a transition to a particular letter depends on the previous k letters that have been generated. Figure 20.5 shows a simple first-order model. The authors report on the development and use of a second-order model. To begin, a dictionary of guessable passwords is constructed. Then the transition matrix is calculated as follows: 1. Determine the frequency matrix f, where f(i, j, k) is the number of occurrences of the trigram consisting of the ith, jth, and kth character. For example, the password parsnips yields the trigrams par, ars, rsn, sni, nip, and ips. 2. For each bigram ij, calculate f(i, j, q) as the total number of trigrams beginning with ij. For example, f(a, b, q) would be the total number of trigrams of the form aba, abb, abc, and so on. 3. Compute the entries of T as follows: T1i, j, k2 =

f1i, j, k2 f1i, j, q2

The result is a model that reflects the structure of the words in the dictionary. With this model, the question “Is this a bad password?” is transformed into the question “Was this string (password) generated by this Markov model?” For a given password, the transition probabilities of all its trigrams can be looked up. Some standard statistical tests can then be used to determine if the password is likely or unlikely for that model. Passwords that are likely to be generated by the model are rejected. The authors report good results for a second-order model. Their system catches virtually all the passwords in their dictionary and does not exclude so many potentially good passwords as to be user unfriendly. A quite different approach has been reported by Spafford [SPAF92a, SPAF92b]. It is based on the use of a Bloom filter [BLOO70]. To begin, we explain the operation of the Bloom filter. A Bloom filter of order k consists of a set of k independent hash functions H1(x), H2(x), Á , Hk(x), where each function maps a password into a hash value in the range 0 to N - 1. That is, Hi(Xj) = y

1 … i … k;

1 … j … D;

0 … y … N-1

where Xj = jth word in password dictionary D = number of words in password dictionary The following procedure is then applied to the dictionary: 1. A hash table of N bits is defined, with all bits initially set to 0. 2. For each password, its k hash values are calculated, and the corresponding bits in the hash table are set to 1. Thus, if Hi(Xj) = 67 for some (i, j), then the sixtyseventh bit of the hash table is set to 1; if the bit already has the value 1, it remains at 1.

20-28

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

When a new password is presented to the checker, its k hash values are calculated. If all the corresponding bits of the hash table are equal to 1, then the password is rejected. All passwords in the dictionary will be rejected. But there will also be some “false positives” (that is, passwords that are not in the dictionary but that produce a match in the hash table). To see this, consider a scheme with two hash functions. Suppose that the passwords undertaker and hulkhogan are in the dictionary, but xG%#jj98 is not. Further suppose that H11undertaker2 = 25

H21undertaker2 = 998

H11hulkhogan2 = 83

H21hulkhogan2 = 665

H11xG%#jj982 = 665 H21xG%#jj982 = 998

If the password xG%#jj98 is presented to the system, it will be rejected even though it is not in the dictionary. If there are too many such false positives, it will be difficult for users to select passwords. Therefore, we would like to design the hash scheme to minimize false positives. It can be shown that the probability of a false positive can be approximated by: k

P L a1 - ekD/N b = a1 - ek/R b

k

or, equivalently, R L

-k ln11 - P1/k2

where k = N = D = R =

number of hash functions number of bits in hash table number of words in dictionary N/D, ratio of hash table size (bits) to dictionary size (words)

Figure 20.6 plots P as a function of R for various values of k. Suppose we have a dictionary of 1 million words and we wish to have a 0.01 probability of rejecting a password not in the dictionary. If we choose six hash functions, the required ratio is R = 9.6. Therefore, we need a hash table of 9.6 * 106 bits or about 1.2 MBytes of storage. In contrast, storage of the entire dictionary would require on the order of 8 MBytes. Thus, we achieve a compression of almost a factor of 7. Furthermore, password checking involves the straightforward calculation of six hash functions and is independent of the size of the dictionary, whereas with the use of the full dictionary, there is substantial searching.1

1

Both the Markov model and the Bloom filter involve the use of probabilistic techniques. In the case of the Markov model, there is a small probability that some passwords in the dictionary will not be caught and a small probability that some passwords not in the dictionary will be rejected. In the case of the Bloom filter, there is a small probability that some passwords not in the dictionary will be rejected. Again we see that taking a probabilistic approach simplifies the solution (e.g., see the Miller-Rabin algorithm in Chapter 8).

20.4 / RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITES

20-29

1

0.1 Pr[false positive]

2 hash functions

0.01 4 hash functions

6 hash functions 0.001

0

5 10 15 Ratio of hash table size (bits) to dictionary size (words)

20

Figure 20.6 Performance of Bloom Filter

20.4 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITES Two thorough treatments of intrusion detection are [BACE00] and [PROC01]. A more concise but very worthwhile treatment is [SCAR07]. Two short but useful survey articles on the subject are [KENT00] and [MCHU00]. [NING04] surveys recent advances in intrusion detection techniques. [HONE01] is the definitive account on honeypots and provides a detailed analysis of the tools and methods of hackers. BACE00 Bace, R. Intrusion Detection. Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan Technical Publishing, 2000. HONE01 The Honeynet Project. Know Your Enemy: Revealing the Security Tools, Tactics, and Motives of the Blackhat Community. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2001. KENT00 Kent, S. “On the Trail of Intrusions into Information Systems.” IEEE Spectrum, December 2000. MCHU00 McHugh, J.; Christie, A.; and Allen, J. “The Role of Intrusion Detection Systems.” IEEE Software, September/October 2000. NING04 Ning, P., et al. “Techniques and Tools for Analyzing Intrusion Alerts.” ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, May 2004. PROC01 Proctor, P., The Practical Intrusion Detection Handbook. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. SCAR07 Scarfone, K., and Mell, P. Guide to Intrusion Detection and Prevention Systems. NIST Special Publication SP 800-94, February 2007.

20-30

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

Recommended Web Sites: • CERT Coordination Center: The organization that grew from the computer emergency response team formed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Site provides good information on Internet security threats, vulnerabilities, and attack statistics. • Packet Storm: Resource of up-to-date and historical security tools, exploits, and advisories. • Honeynet Project: A research project studying the techniques of predatory hackers and developing honeypot products. • Honeypots: A good collection of research papers and technical articles. • Intrusion Detection Working Group: IETF group developing standards for exchange formats and exchange procedures for intrusion detection systems. Includes RFCs and Internet drafts. • STAT Project: A research and open-source project at the U. of California, Santa Barbara that focuses on signature-based intrusion detection tools for hosts, applications, and networks. • Password Usage and Generation: NIST documents on this topic.

20.5 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms audit record Bayes’ Theorem base-rate fallacy honeypot

intruder intrusion detection intrusion detection exchange format

password rule-based intrusion detection salt statistical anomaly detection

Review Questions 20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7 20.8 20.9

List and briefly define three classes of intruders. What are two common techniques used to protect a password file? What are three benefits that can be provided by an intrusion detection system? What is the difference between statistical anomaly detection and rule-based intrusion detection? What metrics are useful for profile-based intrusion detection? What is the difference between rule-based anomaly detection and rule-based penetration identification? What is a honeypot? What is a salt in the context of UNIX password management? List and briefly define four techniques used to avoid guessable passwords.

20.5 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

20-31

Problems 20.1

In the context of an IDS, we define a false positive to be an alarm generated by an IDS in which the IDS alerts to a condition that is actually benign. A false negative occurs when an IDS fails to generate an alarm when an alert-worthy condition is in effect. Using the following diagram, depict two curves that roughly indicate false positives and false negatives, respectively. Frequency of alerts

Less specific or looser

20.2

20.3

20.4

20.5

Conservativeness of signatures

More specific or stricter

The overlapping area of the two probability density functions of Figure 20.1 represents the region in which there is the potential for false positives and false negatives. Further, Figure 20.1 is an idealized and not necessarily representative depiction of the relative shapes of the two density functions. Suppose there is 1 actual intrusion for every 1000 authorized users, and the overlapping area covers 1% of the authorized users and 50% of the intruders. a. Sketch such a set of density functions and argue that this is not an unreasonable depiction. b. What is the probability that an event that occurs in this region is that of an authorized user? Keep in mind that 50% of all intrusions fall in this region. An example of a host-based intrusion detection tool is the tripwire program. This is a file integrity checking tool that scans files and directories on the system on a regular basis and notifies the administrator of any changes. It uses a protected database of cryptographic checksums for each file checked and compares this value with that recomputed on each file as it is scanned. It must be configured with a list of files and directories to check, and what changes, if any, are permissible to each. It can allow, for example, log files to have new entries appended, but not for existing entries to be changed. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using such a tool? Consider the problem of determining which files should only change rarely, which files may change more often and how, and which change frequently and hence cannot be checked. Hence consider the amount of work in both the configuration of the program and on the system administrator monitoring the responses generated. A taxicab was involved in a fatal hit-and-run accident at night. Two cab companies, the Green and the Blue, operate in the city. You are told that: • 85% of the cabs in the city are Green and 15% are Blue. • A witness identified the cab as Blue. The court tested the reliability of the witness under the same circumstances that existed on the night of the accident and concluded that the witness was correct in identifying the color of the cab 80% of the time. What is the probability that the cab involved in the incident was Blue rather than Green? Explain the suitability or unsuitability of the following passwords: a. YK 334 b. mfmitm (for “my favorite c. Natalie1 d. Washington movie is tender mercies) e. Aristotle f. tv9stove g. 12345678 h. dribgib

20-32

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS 20.6

20.7

20.8

20.9

20.10

20.11

20.12

20.13

20.14

20.15

An early attempt to force users to use less predictable passwords involved computersupplied passwords. The passwords were eight characters long and were taken from the character set consisting of lowercase letters and digits. They were generated by a pseudorandom number generator with 215 possible starting values. Using the technology of the time, the time required to search through all character strings of length 8 from a 36-character alphabet was 112 years. Unfortunately, this is not a true reflection of the actual security of the system. Explain the problem. Assume that passwords are selected from four-character combinations of 26 alphabetic characters. Assume that an adversary is able to attempt passwords at a rate of one per second. a. Assuming no feedback to the adversary until each attempt has been completed, what is the expected time to discover the correct password? b. Assuming feedback to the adversary flagging an error as each incorrect character is entered, what is the expected time to discover the correct password? Assume that source elements of length k are mapped in some uniform fashion into a target elements of length p. If each digit can take on one of r values, then the number of source elements is rk and the number of target elements is the smaller number rp. A particular source element xi is mapped to a particular target element yj. a. What is the probability that the correct source element can be selected by an adversary on one try? b. What is the probability that a different source element xk(xi Z xk) that results in the same target element, yj, could be produced by an adversary? c. What is the probability that the correct target element can be produced by an adversary on one try? A phonetic password generator picks two segments randomly for each six-letter password. The form of each segment is CVC (consonant, vowel, consonant), where V = 6 a, e, i, o, u7 and C = V. a. What is the total password population? b. What is the probability of an adversary guessing a password correctly? Assume that passwords are limited to the use of the 95 printable ASCII characters and that all passwords are 10 characters in length. Assume a password cracker with an encryption rate of 6.4 million encryptions per second. How long will it take to test exhaustively all possible passwords on a UNIX system? Because of the known risks of the UNIX password system, the SunOS-4.0 documentation recommends that the password file be removed and replaced with a publicly readable file called /etc/publickey. An entry in the file for user A consists of a user’s identifier IDA, the user’s public key, PUa, and the corresponding private key PRa. This private key is encrypted using DES with a key derived from the user’s login password Pa. When A logs in, the system decrypts E(Pa, PRa) to obtain PRa. a. The system then verifies that Pa was correctly supplied. How? b. How can an opponent attack this system? The encryption scheme used for UNIX passwords is one way; it is not possible to reverse it. Therefore, would it be accurate to say that this is, in fact, a hash code rather than an encryption of the password? It was stated that the inclusion of the salt in the UNIX password scheme increases the difficulty of guessing by a factor of 4096. But the salt is stored in plaintext in the same entry as the corresponding ciphertext password. Therefore, those two characters are known to the attacker and need not be guessed. Why is it asserted that the salt increases security? Assuming that you have successfully answered the preceding problem and understand the significance of the salt, here is another question. Wouldn’t it be possible to thwart completely all password crackers by dramatically increasing the salt size to, say, 24 or 48 bits? Consider the Bloom filter discussed in Section 20.3. Define k = number of hash functions; N = number of bits in hash table; and D = number of words in dictionary.

APPENDIX 20A / THE BASE-RATE FALLACY

20-33

a. Show that the expected number of bits in the hash table that are equal to zero is expressed as k D f = a1 b N b. Show that the probability that an input word, not in the dictionary, will be falsely accepted as being in the dictionary is P = (1 - f)k c. Show that the preceding expression can be approximated as P L a1 - e-kD/N b 20.16

k

Design a file access system to allow certain users read and write access to a file, depending on authorization set up by the system. The instructions should be of the format: READ (F, User A): READ (F, User A):

attempt by User A to read file F attempt by User A to store a possibly modified copy of F

Each file has a header record, which contains authorization privileges; that is, a list of users who can read and write. The file is to be encrypted by a key that is not shared by the users but known only to the system.

APPENDIX 20A THE BASE-RATE FALLACY We begin with a review of important results from probability theory, then demonstrate the base-rate fallacy.

Conditional Probability and Independence We often want to know a probability that is conditional on some event.The effect of the condition is to remove some of the outcomes from the sample space. For example, what is the probability of getting a sum of 8 on the roll of two dice, if we know that the face of at least one die is an even number? We can reason as follows. Because one die is even and the sum is even, the second die must show an even number. Thus, there are three equally likely successful outcomes: (2, 6), (4, 4) and (6, 2), out of a total set of possibilities of [36-(number of events with both faces odd)] = 36-(3 * 3) = 27. The resulting probability is 3/27 = 1/9. Formally, the conditional probability of an event A assuming the event B has occurred, denoted by Pr[A| B], is defined as the ratio Pr[A | B] =

Pr[AB] Pr[B]

where we assume Pr[B] is not zero. In our example, A = {sum of 8} and B = {at least one die even}. The quantity Pr[AB] encompasses all of those outcomes in which the sum is 8 and at least one die is even. As we have seen, there are three such outcomes. Thus, Pr[AB] = 3/36 = 1/12. A moment’s thought should convince you that Pr[B] = 3/4. We can now calculate

20-34

CHAPTER 20 / INTRUDERS

Pr[A | B] =

1/12 1 = 3/4 9

This agrees with our previous reasoning. Two events A and B are called independent if Pr[AB] = Pr[A]Pr[B]. It can easily be seen that if A and B are independent, Pr[A|B] = Pr[A] and Pr[B|A] = Pr[B].

Bayes’ Theorem One of the most important results from probability theory is known as Bayes’ theorem. First we need to state the total probability formula. Given a set of mutually exclusive events E1, E2, Á , En, such that the union of these events covers all possible outcomes, and given an arbitrary event A, then it can be shown that n

Pr[A] = a Pr[A|Ei]Pr[Ei]

(20.1)

i=1

Bayes’ theorem may be stated as follows: Pr[Ei|A] =

Pr[A|Ei]P[Ei] = Pr[A]

Pr[A|Ei]P[Ei]

(20.2)

n

a Pr[A|Ej]Pr[Ej]

j=1

Figure 20.7a illustrates the concepts of total probability and Bayes’ theorem. Bayes’ theorem is used to calculate “posterior odds,” that is, the probability that something really is the case, given evidence in favor of it. For example, suppose we are transmitting a sequence of zeroes and ones over a noisy transmission line. Let S0 and S1 be the events a zero is sent at a given time and a one is sent, respectively, and R0 and R1 be the events that a zero is received and a one is received. Suppose we know the probabilities of the source, namely Pr[S1] = p and Pr[S0] = 1 - p. Now the line is observed to determine how frequently an error occurs when a one is sent and when a zero is sent, and the following probabilities are calculated: Pr[R0|S0] = pa and Pr[R1|S0] = pb. If a zero is received, we can then

E1

E2 A

E3

E4  S0; 0 sent  S1; 1 sent

(a) Diagram to illustrate concepts

 R0; 0 received  R1; 1 received

(b) Example

Figure 20.7 Illustration of Total Probability and Bayes’ Theorem

APPENDIX 20A / THE BASE-RATE FALLACY

20-35

calculate the conditional probability of an error, namely the conditional probability that a one was sent given that a zero was received, using Bayes’ theorem: Pr[S1 | R0] =

Pr[R0 | S1]Pr[S1] pa p = Pr[R0 | S1]Pr[S1] + Pr[R0 | S0]Pr[S0] pa p + (1 - pb)(1 - p)

Figure 20.7b illustrates the preceding equation. In the figure, the sample space is represented by a unit square. Half of the square corresponds to S0 and half to S1, so Pr[S0] = Pr[S1] = 0.5. Similarly, half of the square corresponds to R0 and half to R1, so Pr[R0] = Pr[R1] = 0.5.Within the area representing S0, 1/4 of that area corresponds to R1, so Pr[R1/S0] = 0.25. Other conditional probabilities are similarly evident.

The Base-Rate Fallacy Demonstrated Consider the following situation. A patient has a test for some disease that comes back positive (indicating he has the disease). You are told that • The accuracy of the test is 87% (i.e., if a patient has the disease, 87% of the time, the test yields the correct result, and if the patient does not have the disease, 87% of the time, the test yields the correct result). • The incidence of the disease in the population is 1%. Given that the test is positive, how probable is it that the patient does not have the disease? That is, what is the probability that this is a false alarm? We need Bayes’ theorem to get the correct answer: Pr[well/positive] = =

Pr[positive/well]Pr[well] Pr[positive/disease]Pr[disease] + Pr[positive/well]Pr[well] (0.13)(0.99) = 0.937 (0.87)(0.01) + (0.13)(0.99)

Thus, in the vast majority of cases, when a disease condition is detected, it is a false alarm. This problem, used in a study [PIAT91], was presented to a number of people. Most subjects gave the answer 13%. The vast majority, including many physicians, gave a number below 50%. Many physicians who guessed wrong lamented, “If you are right, there is no point in making clinical tests!” The reason most people get it wrong is that they do not take into account the basic rate of incidence (the base rate) when intuitively solving the problem. This error is known as the base-rate fallacy. How could this problem be fixed? Suppose we could drive both of the correct result rates to 99.9%. That is, suppose we have Pr[positive/disease] = 0.999 and Pr[negative/well] = 0.999. Plugging these numbers into the Equation (20.2), we get Pr[well/ positive] = 0.09. Thus, if we can accurately detect disease and accurately detect lack of disease at a level of 99.9%, then the rate of false alarms will be 9%. This is much better, but still not ideal. Moreover, again assume 99.9% accuracy, but now suppose that the incidence of the disease in the population is only 1/10000 = 0.0001. We then end up with a rate of false alarms of 91%. In actual situations, [AXEL00] found that the probabilities associated with intrusion detection systems were such that the false alarm rate was unsatisfactory.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER

MALICIOUS SOFTWARE 21.1 Types Of Malicious Software Backdoor Logic Bomb Trojan Horses Mobile Code Multiple-Threat Malware 21.2 Viruses The Nature of Viruses Viruses Classification Virus Kits Macro Viruses E-Mail Viruses 21.3 Virus Countermeasures Antivirus Approaches Advanced Antivirus Techniques 21.4 Worms The Morris Worm Worm Propagation Model Recent Worm Attacks State of Worm Technology Mobile Phone Worms Worm Countermeasures 21.5 Distributed Denial Of Service Attacks DDoS Attack Description Constructing the Attack Network DDoS Countermeasures 21.6 Recommended Reading And Web Sites 21.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, And Problems

21-1

21-2

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

What is the concept of defense: The parrying of a blow. What is its characteristic feature: Awaiting the blow. —On War, Carl Von Clausewitz

KEY POINTS ◆ ◆

◆

◆ ◆

Malicious software is software that is intentionally included or inserted in a system for a harmful purpose. A virus is a piece of software that can “infect” other programs by modifying them; the modification includes a copy of the virus program, which can then go on to infect other programs. A worm is a program that can replicate itself and send copies from computer to computer across network connections. Upon arrival, the worm may be activated to replicate and propagate again. In addition to propagation, the worm usually performs some unwanted function. A denial of service (DoS) attack is an attempt to prevent legitimate users of a service from using that service. A distributed denial of service attack is launched from multiple coordinated sources.

Perhaps the most sophisticated types of threats to computer systems are presented by programs that exploit vulnerabilities in computing systems. Such threats are referred to as malicious software, or malware. In this context, we are concerned with threats to application programs as well as utility programs, such as editors and compilers, and kernel-level programs. This chapter examines malicious software, with a special emphasis on viruses and worms. The chapter begins with a survey of various types of malware, with a more detailed look at the nature of viruses and worms. We then turn to distributed denial-of-service attacks. Throughout, the discussion presents both threats and countermeasures.

21.1 TYPES OF MALICIOUS SOFTWARE The terminology in this area presents problems because of a lack of universal agreement on all of the terms and because some of the categories overlap. Table 21.1 is a useful guide. Malicious software can be divided into two categories: those that need a host program, and those that are independent. The former, referred to as parasitic, are essentially fragments of programs that cannot exist independently of some actual application program, utility, or system program. Viruses, logic bombs,

21.1 / TYPES OF MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

21-3

Table 21.1 Terminology of Malicious Programs Name

Description

Virus

Malware that, when executed, tries to replicate itself into other executable code; when it succeeds the code is said to be infected. When the infected code is executed, the virus also executes.

Worm

A computer program that can run independently and can propagate a complete working version of itself onto other hosts on a network.

Logic bomb

A program inserted into software by an intruder. A logic bomb lies dormant until a predefined condition is met; the program then triggers an unauthorized act.

Trojan horse

A computer program that appears to have a useful function, but also has a hidden and potentially malicious function that evades security mechanisms, sometimes by exploiting legitimate authorizations of a system entity that invokes the Trojan horse program.

Backdoor (trapdoor)

Any mechanism that bypasses a normal security check; it may allow unauthorized access to functionality.

Mobile code

Software (e.g., script, macro, or other portable instruction) that can be shipped unchanged to a heterogeneous collection of platforms and execute with identical semantics.

Exploits

Code specific to a single vulnerability or set of vulnerabilities.

Downloaders

Program that installs other items on a machine that is under attack. Usually, a downloader is sent in an e-mail.

Auto-rooter

Malicious hacker tools used to break into new machines remotely.

Kit (virus generator)

Set of tools for generating new viruses automatically.

Spammer programs

Used to send large volumes of unwanted e-mail.

Flooders

Used to attack networked computer systems with a large volume of traffic to carry out a denial-of-service (DoS) attack.

Keyloggers

Captures keystrokes on a compromised system.

Rootkit

Set of hacker tools used after attacker has broken into a computer system and gained root-level access.

Zombie, bot

Program activated on an infected machine that is activated to launch attacks on other machines.

Spyware

Software that collects information from a computer and transmits it to another system.

Adware

Advertising that is integrated into software. It can result in pop-up ads or redirection of a browser to a commercial site.

and backdoors are examples. Independent malware is a self-contained program that can be scheduled and run by the operating system. Worms and bot programs are examples. We can also differentiate between those software threats that do not replicate and those that do. The former are programs or fragments of programs that are activated by a trigger. Examples are logic bombs, backdoors, and bot programs. The latter consist of either a program fragment or an independent program that, when executed, may produce one or more copies of itself to be

21-4

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

activated later on the same system or some other system. Viruses and worms are examples. In the remainder of this section, we briefly survey some of the key categories of malicious software, deferring discussion on the key topics of viruses and worms until the following sections.

Backdoor A backdoor, also known as a trapdoor, is a secret entry point into a program that allows someone who is aware of the backdoor to gain access without going through the usual security access procedures. Programmers have used backdoors legitimately for many years to debug and test programs; such a backdoor is called a maintenance hook. This usually is done when the programmer is developing an application that has an authentication procedure, or a long setup, requiring the user to enter many different values to run the application. To debug the program, the developer may wish to gain special privileges or to avoid all the necessary setup and authentication. The programmer may also want to ensure that there is a method of activating the program should something be wrong with the authentication procedure that is being built into the application. The backdoor is code that recognizes some special sequence of input or is triggered by being run from a certain user ID or by an unlikely sequence of events. Backdoors become threats when unscrupulous programmers use them to gain unauthorized access. The backdoor was the basic idea for the vulnerability portrayed in the movie War Games. Another example is that during the development of Multics, penetration tests were conducted by an Air Force “tiger team” (simulating adversaries). One tactic employed was to send a bogus operating system update to a site running Multics. The update contained a Trojan horse (described later) that could be activated by a backdoor and that allowed the tiger team to gain access. The threat was so well implemented that the Multics developers could not find it, even after they were informed of its presence [ENGE80]. It is difficult to implement operating system controls for backdoors. Security measures must focus on the program development and software update activities.

Logic Bomb One of the oldest types of program threat, predating viruses and worms, is the logic bomb. The logic bomb is code embedded in some legitimate program that is set to “explode” when certain conditions are met. Examples of conditions that can be used as triggers for a logic bomb are the presence or absence of certain files, a particular day of the week or date, or a particular user running the application. Once triggered, a bomb may alter or delete data or entire files, cause a machine halt, or do some other damage. A striking example of how logic bombs can be employed was the case of Tim Lloyd, who was convicted of setting a logic bomb that cost his employer, Omega Engineering, more than $10 million, derailed its corporate growth strategy, and eventually led to the layoff of 80

21.1 / TYPES OF MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

21-5

workers [GAUD00]. Ultimately, Lloyd was sentenced to 41 months in prison and ordered to pay $2 million in restitution.

Trojan Horses A Trojan horse1 is a useful, or apparently useful, program or command procedure containing hidden code that, when invoked, performs some unwanted or harmful function. Trojan horse programs can be used to accomplish functions indirectly that an unauthorized user could not accomplish directly. For example, to gain access to the files of another user on a shared system, a user could create a Trojan horse program that, when executed, changes the invoking user’s file permissions so that the files are readable by any user. The author could then induce users to run the program by placing it in a common directory and naming it such that it appears to be a useful utility program or application. An example is a program that ostensibly produces a listing of the user’s files in a desirable format. After another user has run the program, the author of the program can then access the information in the user’s files. An example of a Trojan horse program that would be difficult to detect is a compiler that has been modified to insert additional code into certain programs as they are compiled, such as a system login program [THOM84]. The code creates a backdoor in the login program that permits the author to log on to the system using a special password. This Trojan horse can never be discovered by reading the source code of the login program. Another common motivation for the Trojan horse is data destruction. The program appears to be performing a useful function (e.g., a calculator program), but it may also be quietly deleting the user’s files. For example, a CBS executive was victimized by a Trojan horse that destroyed all information contained in his computer’s memory [TIME90]. The Trojan horse was implanted in a graphics routine offered on an electronic bulletin board system. Trojan horses fit into one of three models: • Continuing to perform the function of the original program and additionally performing a separate malicious activity • Continuing to perform the function of the original program but modifying the function to perform malicious activity (e.g., a Trojan horse version of a login program that collects passwords) or to disguise other malicious activity (e.g., a Trojan horse version of a process listing program that does not display certain processes that are malicious) • Performing a malicious function that completely replaces the function of the original program

1

In Greek mythology, the Trojan horse was used by the Greeks during their siege of Troy. Epeios constructed a giant hollow wooden horse in which thirty of the most valiant Greek heroes concealed themselves. The rest of the Greeks burned their encampment and pretended to sail away but actually hid nearby. The Trojans, convinced the horse was a gift and the siege over, dragged the horse into the city. That night, the Greeks emerged from the horse and opened the city gates to the Greek army. A bloodbath ensued, resulting in the destruction of Troy and the death or enslavement of all its citizens.

21-6

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

Mobile Code Mobile code refers to programs (e.g., script, macro, or other portable instruction) that can be shipped unchanged to a heterogeneous collection of platforms and execute with identical semantics [JANS01]. The term also applies to situations involving a large homogeneous collection of platforms (e.g., Microsoft Windows). Mobile code is transmitted from a remote system to a local system and then executed on the local system without the user’s explicit instruction. Mobile code often acts as a mechanism for a virus, worm, or Trojan horse to be transmitted to the user’s workstation. In other cases, mobile code takes advantage of vulnerabilities to perform its own exploits, such as unauthorized data access or root compromise. Popular vehicles for mobile code include Java applets, ActiveX, JavaScript, and VBScript. The most common ways of using mobile code for malicious operations on local system are cross-site scripting, interactive and dynamic Web sites, e-mail attachments, and downloads from untrusted sites or of untrusted software.

Multiple-Threat Malware Viruses and other malware may operate in multiple ways. The terminology is far from uniform; this subsection gives a brief introduction to several related concepts that could be considered multiple-threat malware. A multipartite virus infects in multiple ways. Typically, the multipartite virus is capable of infecting multiple types of files, so that virus eradication must deal with all of the possible sites of infection. A blended attack uses multiple methods of infection or transmission, to maximize the speed of contagion and the severity of the attack. Some writers characterize a blended attack as a package that includes multiple types of malware.An example of a blended attack is the Nimda attack, erroneously referred to as simply a worm. Nimda uses four distribution methods: • E-mail: A user on a vulnerable host opens an infected e-mail attachment; Nimda looks for e-mail addresses on the host and then sends copies of itself to those addresses. • Windows shares: Nimda scans hosts for unsecured Windows file shares; it can then use NetBIOS86 as a transport mechanism to infect files on that host in the hopes that a user will run an infected file, which will activate Nimda on that host. • Web servers: Nimda scans Web servers, looking for known vulnerabilities in Microsoft IIS. If it finds a vulnerable server, it attempts to transfer a copy of itself to the server and infect it and its files. • Web clients: If a vulnerable Web client visits a Web server that has been infected by Nimda, the client’s workstation will become infected. Thus, Nimda has worm, virus, and mobile code characteristics. Blended attacks may also spread through other services, such as instant messaging and peer-to-peer file sharing.

21.2 / VIRUSES

21-7

21.2 VIRUSES The Nature of Viruses A computer virus is a piece of software that can “infect” other programs by modifying them; the modification includes injecting the original program with a routine to make copies of the virus program, which can then go on to infect other programs. Computer viruses first appeared in the early 1980s, and the term itself is attributed to Fred Cohen in 1983. Cohen is the author of a groundbreaking book on the subject [COHE94]. Biological viruses are tiny scraps of genetic code—DNA or RNA—that can take over the machinery of a living cell and trick it into making thousands of flawless replicas of the original virus. Like its biological counterpart, a computer virus carries in its instructional code the recipe for making perfect copies of itself. The typical virus becomes embedded in a program on a computer. Then, whenever the infected computer comes into contact with an uninfected piece of software, a fresh copy of the virus passes into the new program. Thus, the infection can be spread from computer to computer by unsuspecting users who either swap disks or send programs to one another over a network. In a network environment, the ability to access applications and system services on other computers provides a perfect culture for the spread of a virus. A virus can do anything that other programs do. The difference is that a virus attaches itself to another program and executes secretly when the host program is run. Once a virus is executing, it can perform any function, such as erasing files and programs that is allowed by the privileges of the current user. A computer virus has three parts [AYCO06]: • Infection mechanism: The means by which a virus spreads, enabling it to replicate. The mechanism is also referred to as the infection vector. • Trigger: The event or condition that determines when the payload is activated or delivered. • Payload: What the virus does, besides spreading. The payload may involve damage or may involve benign but noticeable activity. During its lifetime, a typical virus goes through the following four phases: • Dormant phase: The virus is idle. The virus will eventually be activated by some event, such as a date, the presence of another program or file, or the capacity of the disk exceeding some limit. Not all viruses have this stage. • Propagation phase: The virus places a copy of itself into other programs or into certain system areas on the disk. The copy may not be identical to the propagating version; viruses often morph to evade detection. Each infected program will now contain a clone of the virus, which will itself enter a propagation phase. • Triggering phase: The virus is activated to perform the function for which it was intended. As with the dormant phase, the triggering phase can be caused by a variety of system events, including a count of the number of times that this copy of the virus has made copies of itself.

21-8

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

• Execution phase: The function is performed. The function may be harmless, such as a message on the screen, or damaging, such as the destruction of programs and data files. Most viruses carry out their work in a manner that is specific to a particular operating system and, in some cases, specific to a particular hardware platform. Thus, they are designed to take advantage of the details and weaknesses of particular systems. V IRUS S TRUCTURE A virus can be prepended or postpended to an executable program, or it can be embedded in some other fashion. The key to its operation is that the infected program, when invoked, will first execute the virus code and then execute the original code of the program. A very general depiction of virus structure is shown in Figure 21.1 (based on [COHE94]). In this case, the virus code, V, is prepended to infected programs, and it is assumed that the entry point to the program, when invoked, is the first line of the program. The infected program begins with the virus code and works as follows. The first line of code is a jump to the main virus program. The second line is a special marker that is used by the virus to determine whether or not a potential victim program has already been infected with this virus. When the program is invoked, control is immediately transferred to the main virus program. The virus program may first seek out uninfected executable files and infect them. Next, the virus may perform some action, usually detrimental to the system. This action could be performed every time the program is invoked, or it could be a logic bomb that triggers only under certain conditions. Finally, the virus transfers control to the original program. If the infection

program V : {goto main; 1234567; subroutine infect-executable : {loop: file : get-random-executable-file; if (first-line-of-file  1234567) then goto loop else prepend V to file; } subroutine do-damage : {whatever damage is to be done} subroutine trigger-pulled : {return true if some condition holds} main:

main-program : {infect-executable; if trigger-pulled then do-damage; goto next;}

next: }

Figure 21.1 A Simple Virus

21.2 / VIRUSES

21-9

program CV : {goto main; 01234567; subroutine infect-executable : {loop: file : get-random-executable-file; if (first-line-of-file  01234567) then goto loop; (1) compress file; (2) prepend CV to file; } main:

main-program : {if ask-permission then infect-executable; (3) uncompress rest-of-file; (4) run uncompressed file;} }

Figure 21.2 Logic for a Compression Virus

phase of the program is reasonably rapid, a user is unlikely to notice any difference between the execution of an infected and an uninfected program. A virus such as the one just described is easily detected because an infected version of a program is longer than the corresponding uninfected one. A way to thwart such a simple means of detecting a virus is to compress the executable file so that both the infected and uninfected versions are of identical length. Figure 21.2 [COHE94] shows in general terms the logic required. The key lines in this virus are numbered, and Figure 21.3 [COHE94] illustrates the operation. We assume that program P1 is infected with the virus CV. When this program is invoked, control passes to its virus, which performs the following steps: 1. For each uninfected file P2 that is found, the virus first compresses that file to produce P¿2 , which is shorter than the original program by the size of the virus. 2. A copy of the virus is prepended to the compressed program. 3. The compressed version of the original infected program, P¿1, is uncompressed. 4. The uncompressed original program is executed. 2

CV

CV

CV

4 3

P1ⴕ

P2

P1ⴕ

t0

Figure 21.3 A Compression Virus

1 P1

P2

t1

P2ⴕ

21-10

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

In this example, the virus does nothing other than propagate. As previously mentioned, the virus may include a logic bomb. INITIAL INFECTION Once a virus has gained entry to a system by infecting a single program, it is in a position to potentially infect some or all other executable files on that system when the infected program executes. Thus, viral infection can be completely prevented by preventing the virus from gaining entry in the first place. Unfortunately, prevention is extraordinarily difficult because a virus can be part of any program outside a system. Thus, unless one is content to take an absolutely bare piece of iron and write all one’s own system and application programs, one is vulnerable. Many forms of infection can also be blocked by denying normal users the right to modify programs on the system. The lack of access controls on early PCs is a key reason why traditional machine code based viruses spread rapidly on these systems. In contrast, while it is easy enough to write a machine code virus for UNIX systems, they were almost never seen in practice because the existence of access controls on these systems prevented effective propagation of the virus. Traditional machine code based viruses are now less prevalent, because modern PC OSs do have more effective access controls. However, virus creators have found other avenues, such as macro and e-mail viruses, as discussed subsequently.

Viruses Classification There has been a continuous arms race between virus writers and writers of antivirus software since viruses first appeared. As effective countermeasures are developed for existing types of viruses, newer types are developed. There is no simple or universally agreed upon classification scheme for viruses, In this section, we follow [AYCO06] and classify viruses along two orthogonal axes: the type of target the virus tries to infect and the method the virus uses to conceal itself from detection by users and antivirus software. A virus classification by target includes the following categories: • Boot sector infector: Infects a master boot record or boot record and spreads when a system is booted from the disk containing the virus. • File infector: Infects files that the operating system or shell consider to be executable. • Macro virus: Infects files with macro code that is interpreted by an application. A virus classification by concealment strategy includes the following categories: • Encrypted virus: A typical approach is as follows. A portion of the virus creates a random encryption key and encrypts the remainder of the virus. The key is stored with the virus. When an infected program is invoked, the virus uses the stored random key to decrypt the virus. When the virus replicates, a different random key is selected. Because the bulk of the virus is encrypted with a different key for each instance, there is no constant bit pattern to observe.

21.2 / VIRUSES

21-11

• Stealth virus: A form of virus explicitly designed to hide itself from detection by antivirus software. Thus, the entire virus, not just a payload is hidden. • Polymorphic virus: A virus that mutates with every infection, making detection by the “signature” of the virus impossible. • Metamorphic virus: As with a polymorphic virus, a metamorphic virus mutates with every infection. The difference is that a metamorphic virus rewrites itself completely at each iteration, increasing the difficulty of detection. Metamorphic viruses may change their behavior as well as their appearance. One example of a stealth virus was discussed earlier: a virus that uses compression so that the infected program is exactly the same length as an uninfected version. Far more sophisticated techniques are possible. For example, a virus can place intercept logic in disk I/O routines, so that when there is an attempt to read suspected portions of the disk using these routines, the virus will present back the original, uninfected program. Thus, stealth is not a term that applies to a virus as such but, rather, refers to a technique used by a virus to evade detection. A polymorphic virus creates copies during replication that are functionally equivalent but have distinctly different bit patterns. As with a stealth virus, the purpose is to defeat programs that scan for viruses. In this case, the “signature” of the virus will vary with each copy. To achieve this variation, the virus may randomly insert superfluous instructions or interchange the order of independent instructions. A more effective approach is to use encryption. The strategy of the encryption virus is followed. The portion of the virus that is responsible for generating keys and performing encryption/decryption is referred to as the mutation engine. The mutation engine itself is altered with each use.

Virus Kits Another weapon in the virus writers’ armory is the virus-creation toolkit. Such a toolkit enables a relative novice to quickly create a number of different viruses. Although viruses created with toolkits tend to be less sophisticated than viruses designed from scratch, the sheer number of new viruses that can be generated using a toolkit creates a problem for antivirus schemes.

Macro Viruses In the mid-1990s, macro viruses became by far the most prevalent type of virus. Macro viruses are particularly threatening for a number of reasons: 1. A macro virus is platform independent. Many macro viruses infect Microsoft Word documents or other Microsoft Office documents. Any hardware platform and operating system that supports these applications can be infected. 2. Macro viruses infect documents, not executable portions of code. Most of the information introduced onto a computer system is in the form of a document rather than a program. 3. Macro viruses are easily spread. A very common method is by electronic mail. 4. Because macro viruses infect user documents rather than system programs, traditional file system access controls are of limited use in preventing their spread.

21-12

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

Macro viruses take advantage of a feature found in Word and other office applications such as Microsoft Excel, namely the macro. In essence, a macro is an executable program embedded in a word processing document or other type of file. Typically, users employ macros to automate repetitive tasks and thereby save keystrokes. The macro language is usually some form of the Basic programming language. A user might define a sequence of keystrokes in a macro and set it up so that the macro is invoked when a function key or special short combination of keys is input. Successive releases of MS Office products provide increased protection against macro viruses. For example, Microsoft offers an optional Macro Virus Protection tool that detects suspicious Word files and alerts the customer to the potential risk of opening a file with macros. Various antivirus product vendors have also developed tools to detect and correct macro viruses. As in other types of viruses, the arms race continues in the field of macro viruses, but they no longer are the predominant virus threat.

E-Mail Viruses A more recent development in malicious software is the e-mail virus. The first rapidly spreading e-mail viruses, such as Melissa, made use of a Microsoft Word macro embedded in an attachment. If the recipient opens the e-mail attachment, the Word macro is activated. Then 1. The e-mail virus sends itself to everyone on the mailing list in the user’s e-mail package. 2. The virus does local damage on the user’s system. In 1999, a more powerful version of the e-mail virus appeared. This newer version can be activated merely by opening an e-mail that contains the virus rather than opening an attachment. The virus uses the Visual Basic scripting language supported by the e-mail package. Thus we see a new generation of malware that arrives via e-mail and uses e-mail software features to replicate itself across the Internet. The virus propagates itself as soon as it is activated (either by opening an e-mail attachment or by opening the e-mail) to all of the e-mail addresses known to the infected host. As a result, whereas viruses used to take months or years to propagate, they now do so in hours.This makes it very difficult for antivirus software to respond before much damage is done. Ultimately, a greater degree of security must be built into Internet utility and application software on PCs to counter the growing threat.

21.3 VIRUS COUNTERMEASURES Antivirus Approaches The ideal solution to the threat of viruses is prevention: Do not allow a virus to get into the system in the first place, or block the ability of a virus to modify any files containing executable code or macros. This goal is, in general, impossible to achieve,

21.3 / VIRUS COUNTERMEASURES

21-13

although prevention can reduce the number of successful viral attacks. The next best approach is to be able to do the following: • Detection: Once the infection has occurred, determine that it has occurred and locate the virus. • Identification: Once detection has been achieved, identify the specific virus that has infected a program. • Removal: Once the specific virus has been identified, remove all traces of the virus from the infected program and restore it to its original state. Remove the virus from all infected systems so that the virus cannot spread further. If detection succeeds but either identification or removal is not possible, then the alternative is to discard the infected file and reload a clean backup version. Advances in virus and antivirus technology go hand in hand. Early viruses were relatively simple code fragments and could be identified and purged with relatively simple antivirus software packages. As the virus arms race has evolved, both viruses and, necessarily, antivirus software have grown more complex and sophisticated. [STEP93] identifies four generations of antivirus software: • • • •

First generation: simple scanners Second generation: heuristic scanners Third generation: activity traps Fourth generation: full-featured protection

A first-generation scanner requires a virus signature to identify a virus. The virus may contain “wildcards” but has essentially the same structure and bit pattern in all copies. Such signature-specific scanners are limited to the detection of known viruses. Another type of first-generation scanner maintains a record of the length of programs and looks for changes in length. A second-generation scanner does not rely on a specific signature. Rather, the scanner uses heuristic rules to search for probable virus infection. One class of such scanners looks for fragments of code that are often associated with viruses. For example, a scanner may look for the beginning of an encryption loop used in a polymorphic virus and discover the encryption key. Once the key is discovered, the scanner can decrypt the virus to identify it, then remove the infection and return the program to service. Another second-generation approach is integrity checking. A checksum can be appended to each program. If a virus infects the program without changing the checksum, then an integrity check will catch the change. To counter a virus that is sophisticated enough to change the checksum when it infects a program, an encrypted hash function can be used. The encryption key is stored separately from the program so that the virus cannot generate a new hash code and encrypt that. By using a hash function rather than a simpler checksum, the virus is prevented from adjusting the program to produce the same hash code as before. Third-generation programs are memory-resident programs that identify a virus by its actions rather than its structure in an infected program. Such programs

21-14

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

have the advantage that it is not necessary to develop signatures and heuristics for a wide array of viruses. Rather, it is necessary only to identify the small set of actions that indicate an infection is being attempted and then to intervene. Fourth-generation products are packages consisting of a variety of antivirus techniques used in conjunction. These include scanning and activity trap components. In addition, such a package includes access control capability, which limits the ability of viruses to penetrate a system and then limits the ability of a virus to update files in order to pass on the infection. The arms race continues. With fourth-generation packages, a more comprehensive defense strategy is employed, broadening the scope of defense to more general-purpose computer security measures.

Advanced Antivirus Techniques More sophisticated antivirus approaches and products continue to appear. In this subsection, we highlight some of the most important. GENERIC DECRYPTION Generic decryption (GD) technology enables the antivirus program to easily detect even the most complex polymorphic viruses while maintaining fast scanning speeds [NACH97]. Recall that when a file containing a polymorphic virus is executed, the virus must decrypt itself to activate. In order to detect such a structure, executable files are run through a GD scanner, which contains the following elements: • CPU emulator: A software-based virtual computer. Instructions in an executable file are interpreted by the emulator rather than executed on the underlying processor. The emulator includes software versions of all registers and other processor hardware, so that the underlying processor is unaffected by programs interpreted on the emulator. • Virus signature scanner: A module that scans the target code looking for known virus signatures. • Emulation control module: Controls the execution of the target code. At the start of each simulation, the emulator begins interpreting instructions in the target code, one at a time. Thus, if the code includes a decryption routine that decrypts and hence exposes the virus, that code is interpreted. In effect, the virus does the work for the antivirus program by exposing the virus. Periodically, the control module interrupts interpretation to scan the target code for virus signatures. During interpretation, the target code can cause no damage to the actual personal computer environment, because it is being interpreted in a completely controlled environment. The most difficult design issue with a GD scanner is to determine how long to run each interpretation. Typically, virus elements are activated soon after a program begins executing, but this need not be the case. The longer the scanner emulates a particular program, the more likely it is to catch any hidden viruses. However, the antivirus program can take up only a limited amount of time and resources before users complain of degraded system performance.

21.3 / VIRUS COUNTERMEASURES

21-15

DIGITAL IMMUNE SYSTEM The digital immune system is a comprehensive approach to virus protection developed by IBM [KEPH97a, KEPH97b, WHIT99] and subsequently refined by Symantec [SYMA01]. The motivation for this development has been the rising threat of Internet-based virus propagation. We first say a few words about this threat and then summarize IBM’s approach. Traditionally, the virus threat was characterized by the relatively slow spread of new viruses and new mutations. Antivirus software was typically updated on a monthly basis, and this was sufficient to control the problem. Also traditionally, the Internet played a comparatively small role in the spread of viruses. But as [CHES97] points out, two major trends in Internet technology have had an increasing impact on the rate of virus propagation in recent years: • Integrated mail systems: Systems such as Lotus Notes and Microsoft Outlook make it very simple to send anything to anyone and to work with objects that are received. • Mobile-program systems: Capabilities such as Java and ActiveX allow programs to move on their own from one system to another. In response to the threat posed by these Internet-based capabilities, IBM has developed a prototype digital immune system. This system expands on the use of program emulation discussed in the preceding subsection and provides a generalpurpose emulation and virus-detection system. The objective of this system is to provide rapid response time so that viruses can be stamped out almost as soon as they are introduced. When a new virus enters an organization, the immune system automatically captures it, analyzes it, adds detection and shielding for it, removes it, and passes information about that virus to systems running IBM AntiVirus so that it can be detected before it is allowed to run elsewhere. Figure 21.4 illustrates the typical steps in digital immune system operation: 1. A monitoring program on each PC uses a variety of heuristics based on system behavior, suspicious changes to programs, or family signature to infer that a virus may be present. The monitoring program forwards a copy of any program thought to be infected to an administrative machine within the organization. 2. The administrative machine encrypts the sample and sends it to a central virus analysis machine. 3. This machine creates an environment in which the infected program can be safely run for analysis.Techniques used for this purpose include emulation, or the creation of a protected environment within which the suspect program can be executed and monitored. The virus analysis machine then produces a prescription for identifying and removing the virus. 4. The resulting prescription is sent back to the administrative machine. 5. The administrative machine forwards the prescription to the infected client. 6. The prescription is also forwarded to other clients in the organization. 7. Subscribers around the world receive regular antivirus updates that protect them from the new virus.

21-16

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE Virusinfected client machine

1 3 Analyze virus behavior and structure Extract signature Derive prescription

Virus analysis machine

2

Administrative machine

7

Client machine

Client machine

Client

Administrative machine

Individual user

Client machine

6

Private network 4

5

Client

Other private network

Client

Figure 21.4 Digital Immune System

The success of the digital immune system depends on the ability of the virus analysis machine to detect new and innovative virus strains. By constantly analyzing and monitoring the viruses found in the wild, it should be possible to continually update the digital immune software to keep up with the threat. BEHAVIOR-BLOCKING SOFTWARE Unlike heuristics or fingerprint-based scanners, behavior-blocking software integrates with the operating system of a host computer and monitors program behavior in real-time for malicious actions [CONR02, NACH02]. The behavior blocking software then blocks potentially malicious actions before they have a chance to affect the system. Monitored behaviors can include • • • • • •

Attempts to open, view, delete, and/or modify files; Attempts to format disk drives and other unrecoverable disk operations; Modifications to the logic of executable files or macros; Modification of critical system settings, such as start-up settings; Scripting of e-mail and instant messaging clients to send executable content; and Initiation of network communications.

Figure 21.5 illustrates the operation of a behavior blocker. Behavior-blocking software runs on server and desktop computers and is instructed through policies set by the network administrator to let benign actions take place but to intercede when unauthorized or suspicious actions occur. The module blocks any suspicious software from executing. A blocker isolates the code in a sandbox, which restricts the code’s access to various OS resources and applications. The blocker then sends an alert. Because a behavior blocker can block suspicious software in real-time, it has an advantage over such established antivirus detection techniques as fingerprinting or

21.4 / WORMS 3. Behavior-blocking software at server flags suspicious code. The blocker"sandboxes" the suspicious software to prevent it from proceeding

1. Administrator sets acceptable software behavior policies and uploads them to a server. Policies can also be uploaded to desktops.

Administrator

21-17

Sandbox

2. Malicious software manages to make it through the firewall.

!

4. Server alerts administrator that suspicious code has been identified and sandboxed, awaiting administrator's decision on whether the code should be removed or allowed to run.

Firewall

Server running behavior-blocking software

Internet

Figure 21.5 Behavior-Blocking Software Operation

heuristics. While there are literally trillions of different ways to obfuscate and rearrange the instructions of a virus or worm, many of which will evade detection by a fingerprint scanner or heuristic, eventually malicious code must make a well-defined request to the operating system. Given that the behavior blocker can intercept all such requests, it can identify and block malicious actions regardless of how obfuscated the program logic appears to be. Behavior blocking alone has limitations. Because the malicious code must run on the target machine before all its behaviors can be identified, it can cause harm before it has been detected and blocked. For example, a new virus might shuffle a number of seemingly unimportant files around the hard drive before infecting a single file and being blocked. Even though the actual infection was blocked, the user may be unable to locate his or her files, causing a loss to productivity or possibly worse.

21.4 WORMS A worm is a program that can replicate itself and send copies from computer to computer across network connections. Upon arrival, the worm may be activated to replicate and propagate again. In addition to propagation, the worm usually performs some unwanted function. An e-mail virus has some of the characteristics of a worm because it propagates itself from system to system. However, we can still

21-18

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

classify it as a virus because it uses a document modified to contain viral macro content and requires human action. A worm actively seeks out more machines to infect and each machine that is infected serves as an automated launching pad for attacks on other machines. The concept of a computer worm was introduced in John Brunner’s 1975 SF novel The Shockwave Rider. The first known worm implementation was done in Xerox Palo Alto Labs in the early 1980s. It was nonmalicious, searching for idle systems to use to run a computationally intensive task. Network worm programs use network connections to spread from system to system. Once active within a system, a network worm can behave as a computer virus or bacteria, or it could implant Trojan horse programs or perform any number of disruptive or destructive actions. To replicate itself, a network worm uses some sort of network vehicle. Examples include the following: • Electronic mail facility: A worm mails a copy of itself to other systems, so that its code is run when the e-mail or an attachment is received or viewed. • Remote execution capability: A worm executes a copy of itself on another system, either using an explicit remote execution facility or by exploiting a program flaw in a network service to subvert its operations. • Remote login capability: A worm logs onto a remote system as a user and then uses commands to copy itself from one system to the other, where it then executes. The new copy of the worm program is then run on the remote system where, in addition to any functions that it performs at that system, it continues to spread in the same fashion. A network worm exhibits the same characteristics as a computer virus: a dormant phase, a propagation phase, a triggering phase, and an execution phase. The propagation phase generally performs the following functions: 1. Search for other systems to infect by examining host tables or similar repositories of remote system addresses. 2. Establish a connection with a remote system. 3. Copy itself to the remote system and cause the copy to be run. The network worm may also attempt to determine whether a system has previously been infected before copying itself to the system. In a multiprogramming system, it may also disguise its presence by naming itself as a system process or using some other name that may not be noticed by a system operator. As with viruses, network worms are difficult to counter.

The Morris Worm Until the current generation of worms, the best known was the worm released onto the Internet by Robert Morris in 1988 [ORMA03].The Morris worm was designed to spread on UNIX systems and used a number of different techniques for propagation.

21.4 / WORMS

21-19

When a copy began execution, its first task was to discover other hosts known to this host that would allow entry from this host. The worm performed this task by examining a variety of lists and tables, including system tables that declared which other machines were trusted by this host, users’ mail forwarding files, tables by which users gave themselves permission for access to remote accounts, and from a program that reported the status of network connections. For each discovered host, the worm tried a number of methods for gaining access: 1. It attempted to log on to a remote host as a legitimate user. In this method, the worm first attempted to crack the local password file and then used the discovered passwords and corresponding user IDs. The assumption was that many users would use the same password on different systems. To obtain the passwords, the worm ran a password-cracking program that tried a. Each user’s account name and simple permutations of it b. A list of 432 built-in passwords that Morris thought to be likely

candidates2 c. All the words in the local system dictionary 2. It exploited a bug in the UNIX finger protocol, which reports the whereabouts of a remote user. 3. It exploited a trapdoor in the debug option of the remote process that receives and sends mail. If any of these attacks succeeded, the worm achieved communication with the operating system command interpreter. It then sent this interpreter a short bootstrap program, issued a command to execute that program, and then logged off. The bootstrap program then called back the parent program and downloaded the remainder of the worm. The new worm was then executed.

Worm Propagation Model [ZOU05] describes a model for worm propagation based on an analysis of recent worm attacks. The speed of propagation and the total number of hosts infected depend on a number of factors, including the mode of propagation, the vulnerability or vulnerabilities exploited, and the degree of similarity to preceding attacks. For the latter factor, an attack that is a variation of a recent previous attack may be countered more effectively than a more novel attack. Figure 21.6 shows the dynamics for one typical set of parameters. Propagation proceeds through three phases. In the initial phase, the number of hosts increases exponentially. To see that this is so, consider a simplified case in which a worm is launched from a single host and infects two nearby hosts. Each of these hosts infects two more hosts, and so on. This results in exponential growth. After a time, infecting hosts waste some time attacking already infected hosts, which reduces the rate of infection. During this middle phase, growth is approximately linear, but the rate of infection is rapid. When most vulnerable computers have been infected, the attack enters a slow finish phase as the worm seeks out those remaining hosts that are difficult to identify. 2

The complete list is provided at this book’s Web site.

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

5

105

5.5 Number of infected hosts

21-20

Slow finish phase

4 3.5 3 2.5

Fast spread phase

2 1.5 1

Slow start phase

0.5 100

200

300

400

500

600

Time t (minutes)

Figure 21.6 Worm Propagation Model

Clearly, the objective in countering a worm is to catch the worm in its slow start phase, at a time when few hosts have been infected.

Recent Worm Attacks The contemporary era of worm threats began with the release of the Code Red worm in July of 2001. Code Red exploits a security hole in the Microsoft Internet Information Server (IIS) to penetrate and spread. It also disables the system file checker in Windows. The worm probes random IP addresses to spread to other hosts. During a certain period of time, it only spreads. It then initiates a denial-of-service attack against a government Web site by flooding the site with packets from numerous hosts. The worm then suspends activities and reactivates periodically. In the second wave of attack, Code Red infected nearly 360,000 servers in 14 hours. In addition to the havoc it caused at the targeted server, Code Red consumed enormous amounts of Internet capacity, disrupting service. Code Red II is a variant that targets Microsoft IISs. In addition, this newer worm installs a backdoor, allowing a hacker to remotely execute commands on victim computers. In early 2003, the SQL Slammer worm appeared. This worm exploited a buffer overflow vulnerability in Microsoft SQL server. The Slammer was extremely compact and spread rapidly, infecting 90% of vulnerable hosts within 10 minutes. Late 2003 saw the arrival of the Sobig.f worm, which exploited open proxy servers to turn infected machines into spam engines. At its peak, Sobig.f reportedly accounted for one in every 17 messages and produced more than one million copies of itself within the first 24 hours.

21.4 / WORMS

21-21

Mydoom is a mass-mailing e-mail worm that appeared in 2004. It followed a growing trend of installing a backdoor in infected computers, thereby enabling hackers to gain remote access to data such as passwords and credit card numbers. Mydoom replicated up to 1000 times per minute and reportedly flooded the Internet with 100 million infected messages in 36 hours. A recent worm that rapidly became prevalent in a variety of versions is the Warezov family of worms [KIRK06]. When the worm is launched, it creates several executable in system directories and sets itself to run every time Windows starts, by creating a registry entry. Warezov scans several types of files for e-mail addresses and sends itself as an e-mail attachment. Some variants are capable of downloading other malware, such as Trojan horses and adware. Many variants disable security related products and/or disable their updating capability.

State of Worm Technology The state of the art in worm technology includes the following: • Multiplatform: Newer worms are not limited to Windows machines but can attack a variety of platforms, especially the popular varieties of UNIX. • Multi-exploit: New worms penetrate systems in a variety of ways, using exploits against Web servers, browsers, e-mail, file sharing, and other networkbased applications. • Ultrafast spreading: One technique to accelerate the spread of a worm is to conduct a prior Internet scan to accumulate Internet addresses of vulnerable machines. • Polymorphic: To evade detection, skip past filters, and foil real-time analysis, worms adopt the virus polymorphic technique. Each copy of the worm has new code generated on the fly using functionally equivalent instructions and encryption techniques. • Metamorphic: In addition to changing their appearance, metamorphic worms have a repertoire of behavior patterns that are unleashed at different stages of propagation. • Transport vehicles: Because worms can rapidly compromise a large number of systems, they are ideal for spreading other distributed attack tools, such as distributed denial of service bots. • Zero-day exploit: To achieve maximum surprise and distribution, a worm should exploit an unknown vulnerability that is only discovered by the general network community when the worm is launched.

Mobile Phone Worms Worms first appeared on mobile phones in 2004. These worms communicate through Bluetooth wireless connections or via the multimedia messaging service (MMS). The target is the smartphone, which is a mobile phone that permits users to install software applications from sources other than the cellular network operator. Mobile phone malware can completely disable the phone, delete data on the phone, or force the device to send costly messages to premium-priced numbers.

21-22

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

An example of a mobile phone worm is CommWarrior, which was launched in 2005. This worm replicates by means of Bluetooth to other phones in the receiving area. It also sends itself as an MMS file to numbers in the phone’s address book and in automatic replies to incoming text messages and MMS messages. In addition, it copies itself to the removable memory card and inserts itself into the program installation files on the phone.

Worm Countermeasures There is considerable overlap in techniques for dealing with viruses and worms. Once a worm is resident on a machine, antivirus software can be used to detect it. In addition, because worm propagation generates considerable network activity, network activity and usage monitoring can form the basis of a worm defense. To begin, let us consider the requirements for an effective worm countermeasure scheme: • Generality: The approach taken should be able to handle a wide variety of worm attacks, including polymorphic worms. • Timeliness: The approach should respond quickly so as to limit the number of infected systems and the number of generated transmissions from infected systems. • Resiliency: The approach should be resistant to evasion techniques employed by attackers to evade worm countermeasures. • Minimal denial-of-service costs: The approach should result in minimal reduction in capacity or service due to the actions of the countermeasure software. That is, in an attempt to contain worm propagation, the countermeasure should not significantly disrupt normal operation. • Transparency: The countermeasure software and devices should not require modification to existing (legacy) OSs, application software, and hardware. • Global and local coverage: The approach should be able to deal with attack sources both from outside and inside the enterprise network. No existing worm countermeasure scheme appears to satisfy all these requirements. Thus, administrators typically need to use multiple approaches in defending against worm attacks. C OUNTERMEASURE A PPROACHES Following [JHI07], we list six classes of worm defense: A. Signature-based worm scan filtering: This type of approach generates a worm signature, which is then used to prevent worm scans from entering/leaving a network/host. Typically, this approach involves identifying suspicious flows and generating a worm signature. This approach is vulnerable to the use of polymorphic worms: Either the detection software misses the worm or, if it is sufficiently sophisticated to deal with polymorphic worms, the scheme may take a long time to react. [NEWS05] is an example of this approach. B. Filter-based worm containment: This approach is similar to class A but focuses on worm content rather than a scan signature. The filter checks a message to

21.4 / WORMS

C.

D.

E.

F.

21-23

determine if it contains worm code. An example is Vigilante [COST05], which relies on collaborative worm detection at end hosts. This approach can be quite effective but requires efficient detection algorithms and rapid alert dissemination. Payload-classification-based worm containment: These network-based techniques examine packets to see if they contain a worm.Various anomaly detection techniques can be used, but care is needed to avoid high levels of false positives or negatives. An example of this approach is reported in [CHIN05], which looks for exploit code in network flows. This approach does not generate signatures based on byte patterns but rather looks for control and data flow structures that suggest an exploit. Threshold random walk (TRW) scan detection: TRW exploits randomness in picking destinations to connect to as a way of detecting if a scanner is in operation [JUNG04]. TRW is suitable for deployment in high-speed, low-cost network devices. It is effective against the common behavior seen in worm scans. Rate limiting: This class limits the rate of scanlike traffic from an infected host. Various strategies can be used, including limiting the number of new machines a host can connect to in a window of time, detecting a high connection failure rate, and limiting the number of unique IP addresses a host can scan in a window of time. [CHEN04] is an example. This class of countermeasures may introduce longer delays for normal traffic. This class is also not suited for slow, stealthy worms that spread slowly to avoid detection based on activity level. Rate halting: This approach immediately blocks outgoing traffic when a threshold is exceeded either in outgoing connection rate or diversity of connection attempts [JHI07]. The approach must include measures to quickly unblock mistakenly blocked hosts in a transparent way. Rate halting can integrate with a signature- or filter-based approach so that once a signature or filter is generated, every blocked host can be unblocked. Rate halting appears to offer a very effective countermeasure. As with rate limiting, rate halting techniques are not suitable for slow, stealthy worms. We look now at two approaches in more detail.

PROACTIVE WORM CONTAINMENT The PWC scheme [JHI07] is host based rather than being based on network devices such as honeypots, firewalls, and network IDSs. PWC is designed to address the threat of worms that spread rapidly. The software on a host looks for surges in the rate of frequency of outgoing connection attempts and the diversity of connections to remote hosts. When such a surge is detected, the software immediately blocks its host from further connection attempts. The developers estimate that only a few dozen infected packets may be sent out to other systems before PWC quarantines that attack. In contrast, the Slammer worm on average sent out 4000 infected packets per second. A deployed PWC system consists of a PWC manager and PWC agents in hosts. Figure 21.7 is an example of an architecture that includes PWC. In this example, the security manager, signature extractor, and PWC manager are implemented in a single network device. In practice, these three modules could be implemented as two or three separate devices.

21-24

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

Internet

hosts

LAN switch router

external firewall

LAN switch

Worm management center —Security manager —Signature extractor —PWC manager

hosts

Figure 21.7 Example PWC Deployment

The operation of the PWC architecture can be described as follows: A. A PWC agent monitors outgoing traffic for scan activity, determined by a surge in UDP or TCP connection attempts to remote hosts. If a surge is detected, the agent performs the following actions: (1) issues an alert to local system; (2) blocks all outgoing connection attempts; (3) transmits the alert to the PWC manager; and (4) starts a relaxation analysis, described in D. B. A PWC manager receives an alert. The PWC propagates the alert to all other agents (beside the originating agent). C. The host receives an alert. The agent must decide whether to ignore the alert, in the following way. If the time since the last incoming packet has been sufficiently long so that the agent would have detected a worm if infected, then the alert is ignored. Otherwise, the agent assumes that it might be infected and performs the following actions: (1) blocks all outgoing connection attempts from the specific alerting port; and (2) starts a relaxation analysis, described in D. D. Relaxation analysis is performed as follows. An agent monitors outgoing activity for a fixed window of time to see if outgoing connections exceed a threshold. If so, blockage is continued and relaxation analysis is performed for another window of time. This process continues until the outgoing connection rate drops below the threshold, at which time the agent removes the block. If the threshold continues to be exceeded over a sufficient number of relaxation windows, the agent isolates the host and reports to the PWC manager.

21.4 / WORMS

21-25

Meanwhile, a separate aspect of the worm defense system is in operation. The signature extractor functions as a passive sensor that monitors all traffic and attempts to detect worms by signature analysis. When a new worm is detected, its signature is sent by the security manager to the firewall to filter out any more copies of the worm. In addition, the PWC manager sends the signature to PWC agents, enabling them to immediately recognize infection and disable the worm. N ETWORK -B ASED WORM D EFENSE The key element of a network-based worm defense is worm monitoring software. Consider an enterprise network at a site, consisting of one or an interconnected set of LANs. Two types of monitoring software are needed: • Ingress monitors: These are located at the border between the enterprise network and the Internet.They can be part of the ingress filtering software of a border router or external firewall or a separate passive monitor. A honeypot can also capture incoming worm traffic. An example of a detection technique for an ingress monitor is to look for incoming traffic to unused local IP addresses. • Egress monitors: These can be located at the egress point of individual LANs on the enterprise network as well as at the border between the enterprise network and the Internet. In the former case, the egress monitor can be part of the egress filtering software of a LAN router or switch. As with ingress monitors, the external firewall or a honeypot can house the monitoring software. Indeed, the two types of monitors can be collocated. The egress monitor is designed to catch the source of a worm attack by monitoring outgoing traffic for signs of scanning or other suspicious behavior. Worm monitors can act in the manner of intrusion detection systems and generate alerts to a central administrative system. It is also possible to implement a system that attempts to react in real time to a worm attack, so as to counter zero-day exploits effectively. This is similar to the approach taken with the digital immune system (Figure 21.4). Figure 21.8 shows an example of a worm countermeasure architecture [SIDI05]. The system works as follows (numbers in figure refer to numbers in the following list): 1. Sensors deployed at various network locations detect a potential worm. The sensor logic can also be incorporated in IDS sensors. 2. The sensors send alerts to a central server that correlates and analyzes the incoming alerts. The correlation server determines the likelihood that a worm attack is being observed and the key characteristics of the attack. 3. The server forwards its information to a protected environment, where the potential worm may be sandboxed for analysis and testing. 4. The protected system tests the suspicious software against an appropriately instrumented version of the targeted application to identify the vulnerability. 5. The protected system generates one or more software patches and tests these. 6. If the patch is not susceptible to the infection and does not compromise the application’s functionality, the system sends the patch to the application host to update the targeted application.

21-26

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE

Internet Enterprise network

Firewall sensor

2. Notifications Correlation server

1. Worm scans or infection attempts

Passive sensor

Honeypot 3. Forward features

Sandboxed environment

Remote sensor

Application server 6. Application update

Hypothesis testing 5. Possible fix generation and analysis

4. Vulnerability testing and identification

Patch generation

Instrumented applications

Figure 21.8 Placement of Worm Monitors

The success of such an automated patching system depends on maintaining a current list of potential attacks and developing general tools for patching software to counter such attacks. Examples of approaches are as follows: • Increasing the size of buffers • Using minor code-randomization techniques [BHAT03] so that the infection no longer works because the code to be attacked is no longer in the same form and location • Adding filters to the application that enable it to recognize and ignore an attack

21.5 DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS Distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks present a significant security threat to corporations, and the threat appears to be growing [VIJA02]. In one study, covering a three-week period in 2001, investigators observed more than 12,000 attacks against more than 5000 distinct targets, ranging from well-known ecommerce companies such as Amazon and Hotmail to small foreign ISPs and dial-up connections [MOOR01]. DDoS attacks make computer systems inaccessible by flooding servers, networks, or even end user systems with useless traffic so that legitimate users can no longer gain access to those resources. In a typical DDoS attack, a large number of

21.5 / DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS

21-27

compromised hosts are amassed to send useless packets. In recent years, the attack methods and tools have become more sophisticated, effective, and more difficult to trace to the real attackers, while defense technologies have been unable to withstand large-scale attacks [CHAN02]. A denial of service (DoS) attack is an attempt to prevent legitimate users of a service from using that service. When this attack comes from a single host or network node, then it is simply referred to as a DoS attack. A more serious threat is posed by a DDoS attack. In a DDoS attack, an attacker is able to recruit a number of hosts throughout the Internet to simultaneously or in a coordinated fashion launch an attack upon the target. This section is concerned with DDoS attacks. First, we look at the nature and types of attacks. Next, we examine means by which an attacker is able to recruit a network of hosts for attack launch. Finally, this section looks at countermeasures.

DDoS Attack Description A DDoS attack attempts to consume the target’s resources so that it cannot provide service. One way to classify DDoS attacks is in terms of the type of resource that is consumed. Broadly speaking, the resource consumed is either an internal host resource on the target system or data transmission capacity in the local network to which the target is attacked. A simple example of an internal resource attack is the SYN flood attack. Figure 21.9a shows the steps involved: 1. The attacker takes control of multiple hosts over the Internet, instructing them to contact the target Web server. 2. The slave hosts begin sending TCP/IP SYN (synchronize/initialization) packets, with erroneous return IP address information, to the target. 3. Each SYN packet is a request to open a TCP connection. For each such packet, the Web server responds with a SYN/ACK (synchronize/acknowledge) packet, trying to establish a TCP connection with a TCP entity at a spurious IP address. The Web server maintains a data structure for each SYN request waiting for a response back and becomes bogged down as more traffic floods in. The result is that legitimate connections are denied while the victim machine is waiting to complete bogus “half-open” connections. The TCP state data structure is a popular internal resource target but by no means the only one. [CERT01] gives the following examples: 1. In many systems, a limited number of data structures are available to hold process information (process identifiers, process table entries, process slots, etc.). An intruder may be able to consume these data structures by writing a simple program or script that does nothing but repeatedly create copies of itself. 2. An intruder may also attempt to consume disk space in other ways, including • generating excessive numbers of mail messages • intentionally generating errors that must be logged • placing files in anonymous ftp areas or network-shared areas

21-28

2

Attack machine

SYN packets

SYN packets

Internet 1 SYN/ACK packets

3

Target Web server

Slave servers (a) Distributed SYN flood attack

Attack machine

3

1 2 Reflector machines (a) Distributed ICMP attack Figure 21.9 Examples of Simple DDoS Attacks

Target router

21.5 / DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS

21-29

Figure 21.9b illustrates an example of an attack that consumes data transmission resources. The following steps are involved: 1. The attacker takes control of multiple hosts over the Internet, instructing them to send ICMP ECHO packets3 with the target’s spoofed IP address to a group of hosts that act as reflectors, as described subsequently. 2. Nodes at the bounce site receive multiple spoofed requests and respond by sending echo reply packets to the target site. 3. The target’s router is flooded with packets from the bounce site, leaving no data transmission capacity for legitimate traffic. Another way to classify DDoS attacks is as either direct or reflector DDoS attacks. In a direct DDoS attack (Figure 21.10a), the attacker is able to implant zombie software on a number of sites distributed throughout the Internet. Often, the DDoS attack involves two levels of zombie machines: master zombies and slave zombies. The hosts of both machines have been infected with malicious code. The attacker coordinates and triggers the master zombies, which in turn coordinate and trigger the slave zombies.The use of two levels of zombies makes it more difficult to trace the attack back to its source and provides for a more resilient network of attackers. A reflector DDoS attack adds another layer of machines (Figure 21.10b). In this type of attack, the slave zombies construct packets requiring a response that contains the target’s IP address as the source IP address in the packet’s IP header. These packets are sent to uninfected machines known as reflectors. The uninfected machines respond with packets directed at the target machine. A reflector DDoS attack can easily involve more machines and more traffic than a direct DDoS attack and hence be more damaging. Further, tracing back the attack or filtering out the attack packets is more difficult because the attack comes from widely dispersed uninfected machines.

Constructing the Attack Network The first step in a DDoS attack is for the attacker to infect a number of machines with zombie software that will ultimately be used to carry out the attack. The essential ingredients in this phase of the attack are the following: 1. Software that can carry out the DDoS attack. The software must be able to run on a large number of machines, must be able to conceal its existence, must be able to communicate with the attacker or have some sort of time-triggered mechanism, and must be able to launch the intended attack toward the target. 2. A vulnerability in a large number of systems.The attacker must become aware of a vulnerability that many system administrators and individual users have failed to patch and that enables the attacker to install the zombie software. 3. A strategy for locating vulnerable machines, a process known as scanning.

3

The Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) is an IP-level protocol for the exchange of control packets between a router and a host or between hosts. The ECHO packet requires the recipient to respond with an echo reply to check that communication is possible between entities.

21-30

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE Attacker

Master zombies

Slave zombies

Victim (a) Direct DDoS Attack Attacker

Master zombies Slave zombies

Reflectors

Victim (b) Reflector DDoS Attack

Figure 21.10 Types of Flooding-Based DDoS Attacks

In the scanning process, the attacker first seeks out a number of vulnerable machines and infects them. Then, typically, the zombie software that is installed in the infected machines repeats the same scanning process, until a large distributed network of infected machines is created. [MIRK04] lists the following types of scanning strategies: • Random: Each compromised host probes random addresses in the IP address space, using a different seed. This technique produces a high volume of

21.6 / RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITES

21-31

Internet traffic, which may cause generalized disruption even before the actual attack is launched. • Hit-List: The attacker first compiles a long list of potential vulnerable machines. This can be a slow process done over a long period to avoid detection that an attack is underway. Once the list is compiled, the attacker begins infecting machines on the list. Each infected machine is provided with a portion of the list to scan. This strategy results in a very short scanning period, which may make it difficult to detect that infection is taking place. • Topological: This method uses information contained on an infected victim machine to find more hosts to scan. • Local subnet: If a host can be infected behind a firewall, that host then looks for targets in its own local network. The host uses the subnet address structure to find other hosts that would otherwise be protected by the firewall.

DDoS Countermeasures In general, there are three lines of defense against DDoS attacks [CHAN02]: • Attack prevention and preemption (before the attack): These mechanisms enable the victim to endure attack attempts without denying service to legitimate clients. Techniques include enforcing policies for resource consumption and providing backup resources available on demand. In addition, prevention mechanisms modify systems and protocols on the Internet to reduce the possibility of DDoS attacks. • Attack detection and filtering (during the attack): These mechanisms attempt to detect the attack as it begins and respond immediately.This minimizes the impact of the attack on the target. Detection involves looking for suspicious patterns of behavior. Response involves filtering out packets likely to be part of the attack. • Attack source traceback and identification (during and after the attack): This is an attempt to identify the source of the attack as a first step in preventing future attacks. However, this method typically does not yield results fast enough, if at all, to mitigate an ongoing attack. The challenge in coping with DDoS attacks is the sheer number of ways in which they can operate. Thus DDoS countermeasures must evolve with the threat.

21.6 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITES For a thorough understanding of viruses, the book to read is [SZOR05]. Another excellent treatment is [AYCO06]. Good overview articles on viruses and worms are [CASS01], [FORR97], [KEPH97a], and [NACH97]. [MEIN01] provides a good treatment of the Code Red worm. [WEAV03] is a comprehensive survey of worm characteristics. [HYPP06] discusses worm attacks on mobile phones. [PATR04] is a worthwhile survey of DDoS attacks. [MIRK04] is a thorough description of the variety of DDoS attacks and countermeasures. [CHAN02] is a good examination of DDoS defense strategies.

21-32

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE AYCO06 Aycock, J. Computer Viruses and Malware. New York: Springer, 2006. CASS01 Cass, S. “Anatomy of Malice.” IEEE Spectrum, November 2001. CHAN02 Chang, R. “Defending Against Flooding-Based Distributed Denial-of-Service Attacks: A Tutorial.” IEEE Communications Magazine, October 2002. FORR97 Forrest, S.; Hofmeyr, S.; and Somayaji, A. “Computer Immunology.” Communications of the ACM, October 1997. HYPP06 Hypponen, M. “Malware Goes Mobile.” Scientific American, November 2006. KEPH97a Kephart, J.; Sorkin, G.; Chess, D.; and White, S. “Fighting Computer Viruses.” Scientific American, November 1997. MEIN01 Meinel, C. “Code Red for the Web.” Scientific American, October 2001. MIRK04 Mirkovic, J., and Relher, P. “A Taxonomy of DDoS Attack and DDoS Defense Mechanisms.” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communications Review, April 2004. NACH97 Nachenberg, C. “Computer Virus-Antivirus Coevolution.” Communications of the ACM, January 1997. PATR04 Patrikakis, C.; Masikos, M.; and Zouraraki, O. “Distributed Denial of Service Attacks.” The Internet Protocol Journal, December 2004. SZOR05 Szor, P., The Art of Computer Virus Research and Defense. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2005. WEAV03 Weaver, N., et al. “A Taxonomy of Computer Worms.” The First ACM Workshop on Rapid Malcode (WORM), 2003.

Recommended Web Sites: • AntiVirus Online: IBM’s site on virus information. • Vmyths: Dedicated to exposing virus hoaxes and dispelling misconceptions about real viruses. • VirusList: Site maintained by commercial antivirus software provider. Good collection of useful information. • DDoS Attacks/Tools: Extensive list of links and documents.

21.7 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms backdoor behavior-blocking software blended attack boot-sector virus digital immune system direct DDoS attack

distributed denial of service (DDoS) downloaders e-mail virus flooder logic bomb

macro virus malicious software malware metamorphic virus mobile code parasitic virus

21.7 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS polymorphic virus reflector DDoS attack scanning

stealth virus trapdoor Trojan horse

21-33

virus worm zero-day exploit

Review Questions 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.8

What is the role of compression in the operation of a virus? What is the role of encryption in the operation of a virus? What are typical phases of operation of a virus or worm? What is a digital immune system? How does behavior-blocking software work? In general terms, how does a worm propagate? Describe some worm countermeasures. What is a DDoS?

Problems 21.1 21.2

21.3

There is a flaw in the virus program of Figure 21.1. What is it? The question arises as to whether it is possible to develop a program that can analyze a piece of software to determine if it is a virus. Consider that we have a program D that is supposed to be able to do that. That is, for any program P, if we run D(P), the result returned is TRUE (P is a virus) or FALSE (P is not a virus). Now consider the following program: Program CV := { ... main-program := {if D(CV) then goto next: else infect-executable; } next: } In the preceding program, infect-executable is a module that scans memory for executable programs and replicates itself in those programs. Determine if D can correctly decide whether CV is a virus. The point of this problem is to demonstrate the type of puzzles that must be solved in the design of malicious code and therefore, the type of mindset that one wishing to counter such attacks must adopt. a. Consider the following C program: begin print (*begin print (); end.*); end What do you think the program was intended to do? Does it work? b. Answer the same questions for the following program: char [] = {'0', ' ', '}', ';', 'm', 'a', 'i', 'n', '(', ')', '{', and so on... 't', ')', '0'}; main () { int I; printf(*char t[] = (*);

21-34

CHAPTER 21 / MALICIOUS SOFTWARE for (i=0; t[i]!=0; i=i+1) printf("%d, ", t[i]); printf("%s", t); } 21.4

21.5

21.6

c. What is the specific relevance of this problem to this chapter? Consider the following fragment: legitimate code if data is Friday the 13th; crash_computer(); legitimate code What type of malicious software is this? Consider the following fragment in an authentication program: username = read_username(); password = read_password(); if username is "133t h4ck0r" return ALLOW_LOGIN; if username and password are valid return ALLOW_LOGIN else return DENY_LOGIN What type of malicious software is this? The following code fragments show a sequence of virus instructions and a metamorphic version of the virus. Describe the effect produced by the metamorphic code. Original Code mov eax, 5 add eax, ebx call [eax]

21.7

21.8

Metamorphic Code mov eax, 5 push ecx pop ecx add eax, ebx swap eax, ebx swap ebx, eax call [eax] nop

The list of passwords used by the Morris worm is provided at this book’s Web site. a. The assumption has been expressed by many people that this list represents words commonly used as passwords. Does this seem likely? Justify your answer. b. If the list does not reflect commonly used passwords, suggest some approaches that Morris may have used to construct the list. Suggest some methods of attacking the PWC worm defense that could be used by worm creators and suggest countermeasures to these methods.

CHAPTER

FIREWALLS 22.1 The Need for Firewalls 22.2 Firewall Characteristics 22.3 Types of Firewalls Packet Filtering Firewall Stateful Inspection Firewalls Application-Level Gateway Circuit-Level Gateway 22.4 Firewall Basing Bastion Host Host-Based Firewalls Personal Firewall 22.5 Firewall Location and Configurations DMZ Networks Virtual Private Networks Distributed Firewalls Summary of Firewall Locations and Topologies 22.6 Recommended Reading and Web Site 22.7 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

22-1

22-2

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS

The function of a strong position is to make the forces holding it practically unassailable. —On War, Carl Von Clausewitz On the day that you take up your command, block the frontier passes, destroy the official tallies, and stop the passage of all emissaries. —The Art of War, Sun Tzu

KEY POINTS ◆

◆

A firewall forms a barrier through which the traffic going in each direction must pass. A firewall security policy dictates which traffic is authorized to pass in each direction. A firewall may be designed to operate as a filter at the level of IP packets, or may operate at a higher protocol layer.

Firewalls can be an effective means of protecting a local system or network of systems from network-based security threats while at the same time affording access to the outside world via wide area networks and the Internet.

22.1 THE NEED FOR FIREWALLS Information systems in corporations, government agencies, and other organizations have undergone a steady evolution. The following are notable developments: • Centralized data processing system, with a central mainframe supporting a number of directly connected terminals • Local area networks (LANs) interconnecting PCs and terminals to each other and the mainframe • Premises network, consisting of a number of LANs, interconnecting PCs, servers, and perhaps a mainframe or two • Enterprise-wide network, consisting of multiple, geographically distributed premises networks interconnected by a private wide area network (WAN) • Internet connectivity, in which the various premises networks all hook into the Internet and may or may not also be connected by a private WAN Internet connectivity is no longer optional for organizations. The information and services available are essential to the organization. Moreover, individual users within the organization want and need Internet access, and if this is not provided via their LAN, they will use dial-up capability from their PC to an Internet service provider (ISP). However, while Internet access provides benefits to the organization,

22.2 / FIREWALL CHARACTERISTICS

22-3

it enables the outside world to reach and interact with local network assets. This creates a threat to the organization. While it is possible to equip each workstation and server on the premises network with strong security features, such as intrusion protection, this may not be sufficient and in some cases is not cost-effective. Consider a network with hundreds or even thousands of systems, running various operating systems, such as different versions of UNIX and Windows. When a security flaw is discovered, each potentially affected system must be upgraded to fix that flaw. This requires scaleable configuration management and aggressive patching to function effectively. While difficult, this is possible and is necessary if only host-based security is used. A widely accepted alternative or at least complement to host-based security services is the firewall. The firewall is inserted between the premises network and the Internet to establish a controlled link and to erect an outer security wall or perimeter. The aim of this perimeter is to protect the premises network from Internet-based attacks and to provide a single choke point where security and auditing can be imposed. The firewall may be a single computer system or a set of two or more systems that cooperate to perform the firewall function. The firewall, then, provides an additional layer of defense, insulating the internal systems from external networks. This follows the classic military doctrine of “defense in depth,” which is just as applicable to IT security.

22.2 FIREWALL CHARACTERISTICS [BELL94b] lists the following design goals for a firewall: 1. All traffic from inside to outside, and vice versa, must pass through the firewall. This is achieved by physically blocking all access to the local network except via the firewall. Various configurations are possible, as explained later in this chapter. 2. Only authorized traffic, as defined by the local security policy, will be allowed to pass. Various types of firewalls are used, which implement various types of security policies, as explained later in this chapter. 3. The firewall itself is immune to penetration. This implies the use of a hardened system with a secured operating system. Trusted computer systems are suitable for hosting a firewall and often required in government applications. [SMIT97] lists four general techniques that firewalls use to control access and enforce the site’s security policy. Originally, firewalls focused primarily on service control, but they have since evolved to provide all four: • Service control: Determines the types of Internet services that can be accessed, inbound or outbound. The firewall may filter traffic on the basis of IP address, protocol, or port number; may provide proxy software that receives and interprets each service request before passing it on; or may host the server software itself, such as a Web or mail service. • Direction control: Determines the direction in which particular service requests may be initiated and allowed to flow through the firewall.

22-4

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS

• User control: Controls access to a service according to which user is attempting to access it. This feature is typically applied to users inside the firewall perimeter (local users). It may also be applied to incoming traffic from external users; the latter requires some form of secure authentication technology, such as is provided in IPsec (Chapter 19). • Behavior control: Controls how particular services are used. For example, the firewall may filter e-mail to eliminate spam, or it may enable external access to only a portion of the information on a local Web server. Before proceeding to the details of firewall types and configurations, it is best to summarize what one can expect from a firewall. The following capabilities are within the scope of a firewall: 1. A firewall defines a single choke point that keeps unauthorized users out of the protected network, prohibits potentially vulnerable services from entering or leaving the network, and provides protection from various kinds of IP spoofing and routing attacks. The use of a single choke point simplifies security management because security capabilities are consolidated on a single system or set of systems. 2. A firewall provides a location for monitoring security-related events. Audits and alarms can be implemented on the firewall system. 3. A firewall is a convenient platform for several Internet functions that are not security related. These include a network address translator, which maps local addresses to Internet addresses, and a network management function that audits or logs Internet usage. 4. A firewall can serve as the platform for IPsec. Using the tunnel mode capability described in Chapter 19, the firewall can be used to implement virtual private networks. Firewalls have their limitations, including the following: 1. The firewall cannot protect against attacks that bypass the firewall. Internal systems may have dial-out capability to connect to an ISP. An internal LAN may support a modem pool that provides dial-in capability for traveling employees and telecommuters. 2. The firewall may not protect fully against internal threats, such as a disgruntled employee or an employee who unwittingly cooperates with an external attacker. 3. An improperly secured wireless LAN may be accessed from outside the organization. An internal firewall that separates portions of an enterprise network cannot guard against wireless communications between local systems on different sides of the internal firewall. 4. A laptop, PDA, or portable storage device may be used and infected outside the corporate network, and then attached and used internally.

22.3 / TYPES OF FIREWALLS

22-5

22.3 TYPES OF FIREWALLS A firewall may act as a packet filter. It can operate as a positive filter, allowing to pass only packets that meet specific criteria, or as a negative filter, rejecting any packet that meets certain criteria. Depending on the type of firewall, it may examine one or more protocol headers in each packet, the payload of each packet, or the pattern generated by a sequence of packets. In this section, we look at the principal types of firewalls.

Packet Filtering Firewall A packet filtering firewall applies a set of rules to each incoming and outgoing IP packet and then forwards or discards the packet (Figure 22.1b). The firewall is typically configured to filter packets going in both directions (from and to the internal network). Filtering rules are based on information contained in a network packet: • Source IP address: The IP address of the system that originated the IP packet (e.g., 192.178.1.1) • Destination IP address: The IP address of the system the IP packet is trying to reach (e.g., 192.168.1.2) • Source and destination transport-level address: The transport-level (e.g., TCP or UDP) port number, which defines applications such as SNMP or TELNET • IP protocol field: Defines the transport protocol • Interface: For a firewall with three or more ports, which interface of the firewall the packet came from or which interface of the firewall the packet is destined for The packet filter is typically set up as a list of rules based on matches to fields in the IP or TCP header. If there is a match to one of the rules, that rule is invoked to determine whether to forward or discard the packet. If there is no match to any rule, then a default action is taken. Two default policies are possible: • Default = discard: That which is not expressly permitted is prohibited. • Default = forward: That which is not expressly prohibited is permitted. The default discard policy is more conservative. Initially, everything is blocked, and services must be added on a case-by-case basis. This policy is more visible to users, who are more likely to see the firewall as a hindrance. However, this is the policy likely to be preferred by businesses and government organizations. Further, visibility to users diminishes as rules are created. The default forward policy increases ease of use for end users but provides reduced security; the security administrator must, in essence, react to each new security threat as it becomes known. This policy may be used by generally more open organizations, such as universities. Table 22.1, from [BELL94b], gives some examples of packet filtering rulesets. In each set, the rules are applied top to bottom. The “*” in a field is a wildcard

22-6

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS

Internal (protected) network (e.g., enterprise network)

External (untrusted) network (e.g., Internet)

Firewall

(a) General model

End-to-end transport connection

End-to-end transport connection

Application Transport

End-to-end transport connection

Application Transport

Internet

Internet

Network access

Network access State info

Physical

Internal transport connection

End-to-end transport connection

Physical

(b) Packet filtering firewall

(c) Stateful inspection firewall

Application proxy

Circuit-level proxy

Application

Application

Transport

Transport

Internet

External transport connection

Internal transport connection

Application

Application

Transport

Transport

Internet

Internet

Internet

Network access

Network access

Network access

Network access

Physical

Physical

Physical

Physical

(d) Application proxy firewall

Figure 22.1 Types of Firewalls

(e) Circuit-level proxy firewall

External transport connection

22.3 / TYPES OF FIREWALLS

22-7

Table 22.1 Packet-Filtering Examples Rule Set A action

ourhost

port

theirhost

port

block

*

*

SPIGOT

*

we don’t trust these people

comment

allow

OUR-GW

25

*

*

connection to our SMTP port

Rule Set B action block

ourhost

port

theirhost

port

*

*

*

*

comment default

Rule Set C action

ourhost

port

theirhost

port

allow

*

*

*

25

comment connection to their SMTP port

Rule Set D action

src

port

dest

port

allow

{our hosts}

*

*

25

allow

*

25

*

*

flags

comment our packets to their SMTP port

ACK

their replies

Rule Set E action

src

port

dest

port

allow

{our hosts}

*

*

*

allow

*

*

*

*

allow

*

*

*

>1024

flags

comment our outgoing calls

ACK

replies to our calls traffic to nonservers

designator that matches everything. We assume that the default = discard policy is in force. A. Inbound mail is allowed (port 25 is for SMTP incoming), but only to a gateway host. However, packets from a particular external host, SPIGOT, are blocked because that host has a history of sending massive files in e-mail messages. B. This is an explicit statement of the default policy. All rulesets include this rule implicitly as the last rule. C. This ruleset is intended to specify that any inside host can send mail to the outside. A TCP packet with a destination port of 25 is routed to the SMTP server on the destination machine. The problem with this rule is that the use of port 25 for SMTP receipt is only a default; an outside machine could be configured to have some other application linked to port 25.As this rule is written, an attacker could gain access to internal machines by sending packets with a TCP source port number of 25. D. This ruleset achieves the intended result that was not achieved in C. The rules take advantage of a feature of TCP connections. Once a connection is set up, the ACK flag of a TCP segment is set to acknowledge segments sent from the other side.Thus, this ruleset states that it allows IP packets where the source IP address

22-8

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS

is one of a list of designated internal hosts and the destination TCP port number is 25. It also allows incoming packets with a source port number of 25 that include the ACK flag in the TCP segment. Note that we explicitly designate source and destination systems to define these rules explicitly. E. This ruleset is one approach to handling FTP connections. With FTP, two TCP connections are used: a control connection to set up the file transfer and a data connection for the actual file transfer. The data connection uses a different port number that is dynamically assigned for the transfer. Most servers, and hence most attack targets, use low-numbered ports; most outgoing calls tend to use a higher-numbered port, typically above 1023. Thus, this ruleset allows — Packets that originate internally — Reply packets to a connection initiated by an internal machine — Packets destined for a high-numbered port on an internal machine This scheme requires that the systems be configured so that only the appropriate port numbers are in use. Rule set E points out the difficulty in dealing with applications at the packetfiltering level. Another way to deal with FTP and similar applications is either stateful packet filters or an application-level gateway, both described subsequently in this section. One advantage of a packet filtering firewall is its simplicity. Also, packet filters typically are transparent to users and are very fast. [WACK02] lists the following weaknesses of packet filter firewalls: • Because packet filter firewalls do not examine upper-layer data, they cannot prevent attacks that employ application-specific vulnerabilities or functions. For example, a packet filter firewall cannot block specific application commands; if a packet filter firewall allows a given application, all functions available within that application will be permitted. • Because of the limited information available to the firewall, the logging functionality present in packet filter firewalls is limited. Packet filter logs normally contain the same information used to make access control decisions (source address, destination address, and traffic type). • Most packet filter firewalls do not support advanced user authentication schemes. Once again, this limitation is mostly due to the lack of upper-layer functionality by the firewall. • Packet filter firewalls are generally vulnerable to attacks and exploits that take advantage of problems within the TCP/IP specification and protocol stack, such as network layer address spoofing. Many packet filter firewalls cannot detect a network packet in which the OSI Layer 3 addressing information has been altered. Spoofing attacks are generally employed by intruders to bypass the security controls implemented in a firewall platform. • Finally, due to the small number of variables used in access control decisions, packet filter firewalls are susceptible to security breaches caused by improper configurations. In other words, it is easy to accidentally configure a packet

22.3 / TYPES OF FIREWALLS

22-9

filter firewall to allow traffic types, sources, and destinations that should be denied based on an organization’s information security policy. Some of the attacks that can be made on packet filtering firewalls and the appropriate countermeasures are the following: • IP address spoofing: The intruder transmits packets from the outside with a source IP address field containing an address of an internal host. The attacker hopes that the use of a spoofed address will allow penetration of systems that employ simple source address security, in which packets from specific trusted internal hosts are accepted. The countermeasure is to discard packets with an inside source address if the packet arrives on an external interface. In fact, this countermeasure is often implemented at the router external to the firewall. • Source routing attacks: The source station specifies the route that a packet should take as it crosses the Internet, in the hopes that this will bypass security measures that do not analyze the source routing information. The countermeasure is to discard all packets that use this option. • Tiny fragment attacks: The intruder uses the IP fragmentation option to create extremely small fragments and force the TCP header information into a separate packet fragment. This attack is designed to circumvent filtering rules that depend on TCP header information. Typically, a packet filter will make a filtering decision on the first fragment of a packet. All subsequent fragments of that packet are filtered out solely on the basis that they are part of the packet whose first fragment was rejected. The attacker hopes that the filtering firewall examines only the first fragment and that the remaining fragments are passed through. A tiny fragment attack can be defeated by enforcing a rule that the first fragment of a packet must contain a predefined minimum amount of the transport header. If the first fragment is rejected, the filter can remember the packet and discard all subsequent fragments.

Stateful Inspection Firewalls A traditional packet filter makes filtering decisions on an individual packet basis and does not take into consideration any higher layer context. To understand what is meant by context and why a traditional packet filter is limited with regard to context, a little background is needed. Most standardized applications that run on top of TCP follow a client/server model. For example, for the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP), e-mail is transmitted from a client system to a server system. The client system generates new e-mail messages, typically from user input. The server system accepts incoming e-mail messages and places them in the appropriate user mailboxes. SMTP operates by setting up a TCP connection between client and server, in which the TCP server port number, which identifies the SMTP server application, is 25. The TCP port number for the SMTP client is a number between 1024 and 65535 that is generated by the SMTP client. In general, when an application that uses TCP creates a session with a remote host, it creates a TCP connection in which the TCP port number for the remote (server) application is a number less than 1024 and the TCP port number for the local

22-10

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS

(client) application is a number between 1024 and 65535. The numbers less than 1024 are the “well-known” port numbers and are assigned permanently to particular applications (e.g., 25 for server SMTP). The numbers between 1024 and 65535 are generated dynamically and have temporary significance only for the lifetime of a TCP connection. A simple packet filtering firewall must permit inbound network traffic on all these high-numbered ports for TCP-based traffic to occur. This creates a vulnerability that can be exploited by unauthorized users. A stateful inspection packet firewall tightens up the rules for TCP traffic by creating a directory of outbound TCP connections, as shown in Table 22.2. There is an entry for each currently established connection. The packet filter will now allow incoming traffic to high-numbered ports only for those packets that fit the profile of one of the entries in this directory. A stateful packet inspection firewall reviews the same packet information as a packet filtering firewall, but also records information about TCP connections (Figure 22.1c). Some stateful firewalls also keep track of TCP sequence numbers to prevent attacks that depend on the sequence number, such as session hijacking. Some even inspect limited amounts of application data for some well-known protocols like FTP, IM and SIPS commands, in order to identify and track related connections.

Application-Level Gateway An application-level gateway, also called an application proxy, acts as a relay of application-level traffic (Figure 22.1d). The user contacts the gateway using a TCP/IP application, such as Telnet or FTP, and the gateway asks the user for the name of the remote host to be accessed. When the user responds and provides a valid user ID and authentication information, the gateway contacts the application on the remote host and relays TCP segments containing the application data between the two endpoints. If the gateway does not implement the proxy code for a specific application, the service is not supported and cannot be forwarded across the firewall. Further, the gateway can be configured to support only specific features of Table 22.2 Example Stateful Firewall Connection State Table [WACK02] Source Address

Source Port

Destination Address

Destination Port

Connection State

192.168.1.100

1030

210.22.88.29

80

Established

192.168.1.102

1031

216.32.42.123

80

Established

192.168.1.101

1033

173.66.32.122

25

Established

192.168.1.106

1035

177.231.32.12

79

Established

223.43.21.231

1990

192.168.1.6

80

Established

2122.22.123.32

2112

192.168.1.6

80

Established

210.922.212.18

3321

192.168.1.6

80

Established

24.102.32.23

1025

192.168.1.6

80

Established

223.21.22.12

1046

192.168.1.6

80

Established

22.3 / TYPES OF FIREWALLS

22-11

an application that the network administrator considers acceptable while denying all other features. Application-level gateways tend to be more secure than packet filters. Rather than trying to deal with the numerous possible combinations that are to be allowed and forbidden at the TCP and IP level, the application-level gateway need only scrutinize a few allowable applications. In addition, it is easy to log and audit all incoming traffic at the application level. A prime disadvantage of this type of gateway is the additional processing overhead on each connection. In effect, there are two spliced connections between the end users, with the gateway at the splice point, and the gateway must examine and forward all traffic in both directions.

Circuit-Level Gateway A fourth type of firewall is the circuit-level gateway or circuit-level proxy (Figure 22.1e). This can be a stand-alone system or it can be a specialized function performed by an application-level gateway for certain applications. As with an application gateway, a circuit-level gateway does not permit an end-to-end TCP connection; rather, the gateway sets up two TCP connections, one between itself and a TCP user on an inner host and one between itself and a TCP user on an outside host. Once the two connections are established, the gateway typically relays TCP segments from one connection to the other without examining the contents. The security function consists of determining which connections will be allowed. A typical use of circuit-level gateways is a situation in which the system administrator trusts the internal users. The gateway can be configured to support application-level or proxy service on inbound connections and circuit-level functions for outbound connections. In this configuration, the gateway can incur the processing overhead of examining incoming application data for forbidden functions but does not incur that overhead on outgoing data. An example of a circuit-level gateway implementation is the SOCKS package [KOBL92]; version 5 of SOCKS is specified in RFC 1928. The RFC defines SOCKS in the following fashion: The protocol described here is designed to provide a framework for client-server applications in both the TCP and UDP domains to conveniently and securely use the services of a network firewall. The protocol is conceptually a “shim-layer” between the application layer and the transport layer, and as such does not provide networklayer gateway services, such as forwarding of ICMP messages. SOCKS consists of the following components: • The SOCKS server, which often runs on a UNIX-based firewall. SOCKS is also implemented on Windows systems. • The SOCKS client library, which runs on internal hosts protected by the firewall.

22-12

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS

• SOCKS-ified versions of several standard client programs such as FTP and TELNET. The implementation of the SOCKS protocol typically involves either the recompilation or relinking of TCP-based client applications, or the use of alternate dynamically loaded libraries, to use the appropriate encapsulation routines in the SOCKS library. When a TCP-based client wishes to establish a connection to an object that is reachable only via a firewall (such determination is left up to the implementation), it must open a TCP connection to the appropriate SOCKS port on the SOCKS server system. The SOCKS service is located on TCP port 1080. If the connection request succeeds, the client enters a negotiation for the authentication method to be used, authenticates with the chosen method, and then sends a relay request. The SOCKS server evaluates the request and either establishes the appropriate connection or denies it. UDP exchanges are handled in a similar fashion. In essence, a TCP connection is opened to authenticate a user to send and receive UDP segments, and the UDP segments are forwarded as long as the TCP connection is open.

22.4 FIREWALL BASING It is common to base a firewall on a stand-alone machine running a common operating system, such as UNIX or Linux. Firewall functionality can also be implemented as a software module in a router or LAN switch. In this section, we look at some additional firewall basing considerations.

Bastion Host A bastion host is a system identified by the firewall administrator as a critical strong point in the network’s security. Typically, the bastion host serves as a platform for an application-level or circuit-level gateway. Common characteristics of a bastion host are as follows: • The bastion host hardware platform executes a secure version of its operating system, making it a hardened system. • Only the services that the network administrator considers essential are installed on the bastion host. These could include proxy applications for DNS, FTP, HTTP, and SMTP. • The bastion host may require additional authentication before a user is allowed access to the proxy services. In addition, each proxy service may require its own authentication before granting user access. • Each proxy is configured to support only a subset of the standard application’s command set. • Each proxy is configured to allow access only to specific host systems. This means that the limited command/feature set may be applied only to a subset of systems on the protected network.

22.4 / FIREWALL BASING

22-13

• Each proxy maintains detailed audit information by logging all traffic, each connection, and the duration of each connection. The audit log is an essential tool for discovering and terminating intruder attacks. • Each proxy module is a very small software package specifically designed for network security. Because of its relative simplicity, it is easier to check such modules for security flaws. For example, a typical UNIX mail application may contain over 20,000 lines of code, while a mail proxy may contain fewer than 1000. • Each proxy is independent of other proxies on the bastion host. If there is a problem with the operation of any proxy, or if a future vulnerability is discovered, it can be uninstalled without affecting the operation of the other proxy applications. Also, if the user population requires support for a new service, the network administrator can easily install the required proxy on the bastion host. • A proxy generally performs no disk access other than to read its initial configuration file. Hence, the portions of the file system containing executable code can be made read only. This makes it difficult for an intruder to install Trojan horse sniffers or other dangerous files on the bastion host. • Each proxy runs as a nonprivileged user in a private and secured directory on the bastion host.

Host-Based Firewalls A host-based firewall is a software module used to secure an individual host. Such modules are available in many operating systems or can be provided as an add-on package. Like conventional stand-alone firewalls, host-resident firewalls filter and restrict the flow of packets. A common location for such firewalls is a server. There are several advantages to the use of a server-based or workstationbased firewall: • Filtering rules can be tailored to the host environment. Specific corporate security policies for servers can be implemented, with different filters for servers used for different application. • Protection is provided independent of topology. Thus both internal and external attacks must pass through the firewall. • Used in conjunction with stand-alone firewalls, the host-based firewall provides an additional layer of protection. A new type of server can be added to the network, with its own firewall, without the necessity of altering the network firewall configuration.

Personal Firewall A personal firewall controls the traffic between a personal computer or workstation on one side and the Internet or enterprise network on the other side. Personal firewall functionality can be used in the home environment and on corporate intranets. Typically, the personal firewall is a software module on the personal computer. In a

22-14

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS

home environment with multiple computers connected to the Internet, firewall functionality can also be housed in a router that connects all of the home computers to a DSL, cable modem, or other Internet interface. Personal firewalls are typically much less complex than either server-based firewalls or stand-alone firewalls. The primary role of the personal firewall is to deny unauthorized remote access to the computer. The firewall can also monitor outgoing activity in an attempt to detect and block worms and other malware. An example of a personal firewall is the capability built in to the Mac OS X operating system. When the user enables the personal firewall in Mac OS X, all inbound connections are denied except for those the user explicitly permits. Figure 22.2 shows this simple interface. The list of inbound services that can be selectively reenabled, with their port numbers, includes the following: • • • • • • • • • •

Personal file sharing (548, 427) Windows sharing (139) Personal Web sharing (80, 427) Remote login - SSH (22) FTP access (20-21, 1024-64535 from 20-21) Remote Apple events (3031) Printer sharing (631, 515) IChat Rendezvous (5297, 5298) ITunes Music Sharing (3869) CVS (2401)

Figure 22.2 Example Personal Firewall Interface

22.5 / FIREWALL LOCATION AND CONFIGURATIONS

• • • • • • • • • •

22-15

Gnutella/Limewire (6346) ICQ (4000) IRC (194) MSN Messenger (6891-6900) Network Time (123) Retrospect (497) SMB (without netbios-445) Timbuktu (407) VNC (5900-5902) WebSTAR Admin (1080, 1443)

When FTP access is enabled, ports 20 and 21 on the local machine are opened for FTP; if others connect to this computer from ports 20 or 21, the ports 1024 through 64535 are open. For increased protection, advanced firewall features are available through easy-to-configure checkboxes. Stealth mode hides the Mac on the Internet by dropping unsolicited communication packets, making it appear as though no Mac is present. UDP packets can be blocked, restricting network traffic to TCP packets only for open ports. The firewall also supports logging, an important tool for checking on unwanted activity.

22.5 FIREWALL LOCATION AND CONFIGURATIONS As Figure 22.1a indicates, a firewall is positioned to provide a protective barrier between an external, potentially untrusted source of traffic and an internal network. With that general principle in mind, a security administrator must decide on the location and on the number of firewalls needed. In this section, we look at some common options.

DMZ Networks Figure 22.3 suggests the most common distinction, that between an internal and an external firewall. An external firewall is placed at the edge of a local or enterprise network, just inside the boundary router that connects to the Internet or some wide area network (WAN). One or more internal firewalls protect the bulk of the enterprise network. Between these two types of firewalls are one or more networked devices in a region referred to as a DMZ (demilitarized zone) network. Systems that are externally accessible but need some protections are usually located on DMZ networks. Typically, the systems in the DMZ require or foster external connectivity, such as a corporate Web site, an e-mail server, or a DNS (domain name system) server. The external firewall provides a measure of access control and protection for the DMZ systems consistent with their need for external connectivity. The external

22-16

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS

Internet

Boundary router

Internal DMZ network External firewall

LAN switch Web server(s)

Email server

DNS server

Internal protected network

Internal firewall

LAN switch Application and database servers

Workstations

Figure 22.3 Example Firewall Configuration

firewall also provides a basic level of protection for the remainder of the enterprise network. In this type of configuration, internal firewalls serve three purposes: 1. The internal firewall adds more stringent filtering capability, compared to the external firewall, in order to protect enterprise servers and workstations from external attack. 2. The internal firewall provides two-way protection with respect to the DMZ. First, the internal firewall protects the remainder of the network from attacks launched from DMZ systems. Such attacks might originate from worms, rootkits, bots, or other malware lodged in a DMZ system. Second, an internal firewall can protect the DMZ systems from attack from the internal protected network.

22.5 / FIREWALL LOCATION AND CONFIGURATIONS

22-17

3. Multiple internal firewalls can be used to protect portions of the internal network from each other. For example, firewalls can be configured so that internal servers are protected from internal workstations and vice versa. A common practice is to place the DMZ on a different network interface on the external firewall from that used to access the internal networks.

Virtual Private Networks In today’s distributed computing environment, the virtual private network (VPN) offers an attractive solution to network managers. In essence, a VPN consists of a set of computers that interconnect by means of a relatively unsecure network and that make use of encryption and special protocols to provide security. At each corporate site, workstations, servers, and databases are linked by one or more local area networks (LANs). The Internet or some other public network can be used to interconnect sites, providing a cost savings over the use of a private network and offloading the wide area network management task to the public network provider. That same public network provides an access path for telecommuters and other mobile employees to log on to corporate systems from remote sites. But the manager faces a fundamental requirement: security. Use of a public network exposes corporate traffic to eavesdropping and provides an entry point for unauthorized users. To counter this problem, a VPN is needed. In essence, a VPN uses encryption and authentication in the lower protocol layers to provide a secure connection through an otherwise insecure network, typically the Internet. VPNs are generally cheaper than real private networks using private lines but rely on having the same encryption and authentication system at both ends. The encryption may be performed by firewall software or possibly by routers. The most common protocol mechanism used for this purpose is at the IP level and is known as IPsec. An organization maintains LANs at dispersed locations. A logical means of implementing an IPsec is in a firewall, as shown in Figure 22.4, which essentially repeats Figure 19.1. If IPsec is implemented in a separate box behind (internal to) the firewall, then VPN traffic passing through the firewall in both directions is encrypted. In this case, the firewall is unable to perform its filtering function or other security functions, such as access control, logging, or scanning for viruses. IPsec could be implemented in the boundary router, outside the firewall. However, this device is likely to be less secure than the firewall and thus less desirable as an IPsec platform.

Distributed Firewalls A distributed firewall configuration involves stand-alone firewall devices plus hostbased firewalls working together under a central administrative control. Figure 22.5 suggests a distributed firewall configuration. Administrators can configure hostresident firewalls on hundreds of servers and workstations as well as configure personal firewalls on local and remote user systems. Tools let the network administrator set policies and monitor security across the entire network. These firewalls protect against internal attacks and provide protection tailored to specific machines and applications. Stand-alone firewalls provide global protection, including internal firewalls and an external firewall, as discussed previously.

22-18

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS User system with IPsec Secure IP Payload

Public (Internet) or Private Network sec IP ader e IP er H ad He

He IP ad er

IP re d cu Se ayloa P

I He Psec ad er

Se Pa cure yl IP oa d

IP IPsec Header Header

Ethernet switch

IP Header

Ethernet switch

IP Payload

IP Header

Firewall with IPsec

IP Payload

Firewall with IPsec

Figure 22.4 A VPN Security Scenario

With distributed firewalls, it may make sense to establish both an internal and an external DMZ. Web servers that need less protection because they have less critical information on them could be placed in an external DMZ, outside the external firewall. What protection is needed is provided by host-based firewalls on these servers. An important aspect of a distributed firewall configuration is security monitoring. Such monitoring typically includes log aggregation and analysis, firewall statistics, and fine-grained remote monitoring of individual hosts if needed.

Summary of Firewall Locations and Topologies We can now summarize the discussion from Sections 22.4 and 22.5 to define a spectrum of firewall locations and topologies. The following alternatives can be identified: • Host-resident firewall: This category includes personal firewall software and firewall software on servers. Such firewalls can be used alone or as part of an in-depth firewall deployment. • Screening router: A single router between internal and external networks with stateless or full packet filtering. This arrangement is typical for small office/home office (SOHO) applications.

22.5 / FIREWALL LOCATION AND CONFIGURATIONS

22-19

Remote users

Internet Boundary router

External DMZ network Web server(s)

External firewall

Internal DMZ network

LAN switch

Web server(s)

Email server

DNS server Internal firewall

Internal protected network

LAN switch

Application and database servers

host-resident firewall Workstations Figure 22.5 Example Distributed Firewall Configuration

• Single bastion inline: A single firewall device between an internal and external router (e.g., Figure 22.1a). The firewall may implement stateful filters and/or application proxies. This is the typical firewall appliance configuration for small to medium-sized organizations.

22-20

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS

• Single bastion T: Similar to single bastion inline but has a third network interface on bastion to a DMZ where externally visible servers are placed. Again, this is a common appliance configuration for medium to large organizations. • Double bastion inline: Figure 22.3 illustrates this configuration, where the DMZ is sandwiched between bastion firewalls. This configuration is common for large businesses and government organizations. • Double bastion T: The DMZ is on a separate network interface on the bastion firewall. This configuration is also common for large businesses and government organizations and may be required. For example, this configuration is required for Australian government use (Australian Government Information Technology Security Manual - ACSI33). • Distributed firewall configuration: Illustrated in Figure 22.5. This configuration is used by some large businesses and government organizations.

22.6 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITE A classic treatment of firewalls is [CHES03]. [LODI98], [OPPL97], and [BELL94b] are good overview articles on the subject. [WACK02] is an excellent overview of firewall technology and firewall policies. [AUDI04] and [WILS05] provide useful discussions of firewalls. AUDI04 Audin, G. “Next-Gen Firewalls: What to Expect.” Business Communications Review, June 2004. BELL94b Bellovin, S., and Cheswick, W. “Network Firewalls.” IEEE Communications Magazine, September 1994. CHAP00 Chapman, D., and Zwicky, E. Building Internet Firewalls. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, 2000. CHES03 Cheswick, W., and Bellovin, S. Firewalls and Internet Security: Repelling the Wily Hacker. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2003. LODI98 Lodin, S., and Schuba, C. “Firewalls Fend Off Invasions from the Net.” IEEE Spectrum, February 1998. OPPL97 Oppliger, R. “Internet Security: Firewalls and Beyond.” Communications of the ACM, May 1997. WACK02 Wack, J.; Cutler, K.; and Pole, J. Guidelines on Firewalls and Firewall Policy. NIST Special Publication SP 800-41, January 2002. WILS05 Wilson, J. “The Future of the Firewall.”Business Communications Review, May 2005.

Recommended Web Site: • Firewall.com: Numerous links to firewall references and software resources.

22.7 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

22-21

22.7 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms application-level gateway bastion host circuit-level gateway distributed firewalls DMZ

firewall host-based firewall IP address spoofing IP security (IPsec) packet filtering firewall

personal firewall proxy stateful inspection firewall tiny fragment attack virtual private network (VPN)

Review Questions 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.7 22.8 22.9 22.10 22.11 22.12

List three design goals for a firewall. List four techniques used by firewalls to control access and enforce a security policy. What information is used by a typical packet filtering firewall? What are some weaknesses of a packet filtering firewall? What is the difference between a packet filtering firewall and a stateful inspection firewall? What is an application-level gateway? What is a circuit-level gateway? What are the differences among the firewalls of Figure 22.1? What are the common characteristics of a bastion host? Why is it useful to have host-based firewalls? What is a DMZ network and what types of systems would you expect to find on such networks? What is the difference between an internal and an external firewall?

Problems 22.1

22.2

22.3

As was mentioned in Section 22.3, one approach to defeating the tiny fragment attack is to enforce a minimum length of the transport header that must be contained in the first fragment of an IP packet. If the first fragment is rejected, all subsequent fragments can be rejected. However, the nature of IP is such that fragments may arrive out of order. Thus, an intermediate fragment may pass through the filter before the initial fragment is rejected. How can this situation be handled? In an IPv4 packet, the size of the payload in the first fragment, in octets, is equal to Total Length – (4 × IHL). If this value is less than the required minimum (8 octets for TCP), then this fragment and the entire packet are rejected. Suggest an alternative method of achieving the same result using only the Fragment Offset field. RFC 791, the IPv4 protocol specification, describes a reassembly algorithm that results in new fragments overwriting any overlapped portions of previously received fragments. Given such a reassembly implementation, an attacker could construct a series of packets in which the lowest (zero-offset) fragment would contain innocuous data (and thereby be passed by administrative packet filters), and in which some subsequent packet having a non-zero offset would overlap TCP header information (destination port, for instance) and cause it to be modified. The second packet would be passed through most filter implementations because it does not have a zero fragment offset. Suggest a method that could be used by a packet filter to counter this attack.

22-22

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS Table 22.3 Sample Packet Filter Firewall Ruleset Source Address

Source Port

Dest Address

Dest Port

Action

1

Any

Any

192.168.1.0

> 1023

Allow

2

192.168.1.1

Any

Any

Any

Deny

3

Any

Any

192.168.1.1

Any

Deny

4

192.168.1.0

Any

Any

Any

Allow

5

Any

Any

192.168.1.2

SMTP

Allow

6

Any

Any

192.168.1.3

HTTP

Allow

7

Any

Any

Any

Any

Deny

22.4

22.5

Table 22.3 shows a sample of a packet filter firewall ruleset for an imaginary network of IP address that range from 192.168.1.0 to 192.168.1.254. Describe the effect of each rule. SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) is the standard protocol for transferring mail between hosts over TCP. A TCP connection is set up between a user agent and a server program. The server listens on TCP port 25 for incoming connection requests. The user end of the connection is on a TCP port number above 1023. Suppose you wish to build a packet filter rule set allowing inbound and outbound SMTP traffic. You generate the following ruleset: Rule

Direction

Src Addr

Dest Addr

Protocol

Dest Port

Action

A

In

External

Internal

TCP

25

Permit

B

Out

Internal

External

TCP

>1023

Permit

C

Out

Internal

External

TCP

25

Permit

D

In

External

Internal

TCP

>1023

Permit

E

Either

Any

Any

Any

Any

Deny

a. Describe the effect of each rule. b. Your host in this example has IP address 172.16.1.1. Someone tries to send e-mail from a remote host with IP address 192.168.3.4. If successful, this generates an SMTP dialogue between the remote user and the SMTP server on your host consisting of SMTP commands and mail. Additionally, assume that a user on your host tries to send e-mail to the SMTP server on the remote system. Four typical packets for this scenario are as shown: Packet Direction

Src Addr

Dest Addr

Protocol

Dest Port

Action

1

In

192.168.3.4

172.16.1.1

TCP

25

?

2

Out

172.16.1.1

192.168.3.4

TCP

1234

?

3

Out

172.16.1.1

192.168.3.4

TCP

25

?

4

In

192.168.3.4

172.16.1.1

TCP

1357

?

Indicate which packets are permitted or denied and which rule is used in each case.

22.7 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

22-23

c. Someone from the outside world (10.1.2.3) attempts to open a connection from port 5150 on a remote host to the Web proxy server on port 8080 on one of your local hosts (172.16.3.4), in order to carry out an attack. Typical packets are as follows: Packet

22.6

Direction

Dest Addr

Protocol

Dest Port

Action

5

In

10.1.2.3

172.16.3.4

TCP

8080

?

6

Out

172.16.3.4

10.1.2.3

TCP

5150

?

Will the attack succeed? Give details. To provide more protection, the ruleset from the preceding problem is modified as follows: Rule Direction

22.7

Src Addr

Src Addr

Dest Addr

Protocol Src Port Dest Port Action

A

In

External

Internal

TCP

>1023

25

Permit

B

Out

Internal

External

TCP

25

>1023

Permit

C

Out

Internal

External

TCP

>1023

25

Permit

D

In

External

Internal

TCP

25

>1023

Permit

E

Either

Any

Any

Any

Any

Any

Deny

a. Describe the change. b. Apply this new ruleset to the same six packets of the preceding problem. Indicate which packets are permitted or denied and which rule is used in each case. A hacker uses port 25 as the client port on his or her end to attempt to open a connection to your Web proxy server. a. The following packets might be generated:

Packet

Direction

Src Addr

Dest Addr

Protocol

Src Port

Dest Port

Action

7

In

10.1.2.3

172.16.3.4

TCP

25

8080

?

8

Out

172.16.3.4

10.1.2.3

TCP

8080

25

?

22.8

22.9

Explain why this attack will succeed, using the ruleset of the preceding problem. b. When a TCP connection is initiated, the ACK bit in the TCP header is not set. Subsequently, all TCP headers sent over the TCP connection have the ACK bit set. Use this information to modify the ruleset of the preceding problem to prevent the attack just described. A common management requirement is that “all external Web traffic must flow via the organization’s Web proxy.” However, that requirement is easier stated than implemented. Discuss the various problems and issues, possible solutions, and limitations with supporting this requirement. In particular consider issues such as identifying exactly what constitutes “Web traffic” and how it may be monitored, given the large range of ports and various protocols used by Web browsers and servers. Consider the threat of “theft/breach of proprietary or confidential information held in key data files on the system.” One method by which such a breach might occur is the accidental/deliberate e-mailing of information to a user outside to the organization. A possible countermeasure to this is to require all external e-mail to be given a

22-24

CHAPTER 22 / FIREWALLS

22.10

sensitivity tag (classification if you like) in its subject and for external e-mail to have the lowest sensitivity tag. Discuss how this measure could be implemented in a firewall and what components and architecture would be needed to do this. You are given the following “informal firewall policy” details to be implemented using a firewall like that in Figure 22.3: 1. E-mail may be sent using SMTP in both directions through the firewall, but it must be relayed via the DMZ mail gateway that provides header sanitization and content filtering. External e-mail must be destined for the DMZ mail server. 2. Users inside may retrieve their e-mail from the DMZ mail gateway, using either POP3 or POP3S, and authenticate themselves. 3. Users outside may retrieve their e-mail from the DMZ mail gateway, but only if they use the secure POP3 protocol, and authenticate themselves 4. Web requests (both insecure and secure) are allowed from any internal user out through the firewall but must be relayed via the DMZ Web proxy, which provides content filtering (noting this is not possible for secure requests), and users must authenticate with the proxy for logging. 5. Web requests (both insecure and secure) are allowed from anywhere on the Internet to the DMZ Web server 6. DNS lookup requests by internal users allowed via the DMZ DNS server, which queries to the Internet. 7. External DNS requests are provided by the DMZ DNS server. 8. Management and update of information on the DMZ servers is allowed using secure shell connections from relevant authorized internal users (may have different sets of users on each system as appropriate). 9. SNMP management requests are permitted from the internal management hosts to the firewalls, with the firewalls also allowed to send management traps (i.e., notification of some event occurring) to the management hosts Design suitable packet filter rulesets (similar to those shown in Table 22.1) to be implemented on the “External Firewall” and the “Internal Firewall” to satisfy the aforementioned policy requirements.

CHAPTER

LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS 23.1 Cybercrime and Computer Crime Types of Computer Crime Law Enforcement Challenges Working With Law Enforcement 23.2 Intellectual Property Types of Intellectual Property Intellectual Property Relevant to Network and Computer Security Digital Millennium Copyright Act Digital Rights Management 23.3 Privacy Privacy Law and Regulation Organizational Response Privacy and Data Surveillance 23.4 Ethical Issues Ethics and the IS Professions Ethical Issues Related to Computers and Information Systems Codes of Conduct 23.5 Recommended Reading and Web Sites 23.6 Key Terms, Review Questions, and Problems

23-1

23-2

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

There are some dogs who wouldn’t debase what are to them sacred forms. A very fine, very serious German Shepherd I worked with, for instance, grumbled noisily at other dogs when they didn’t obey. When training him to retrieve, at one point I set the dumbbell on its end for the fun of it. He glared disapprovingly at the dumbbell and at me, then pushed it carefully back into its proper position before picking it up and returning with it, rather sullenly. —Adam’s Task: Calling Animals by Name, Vicki Hearne The legal and ethical aspects of computer security encompass a broad range of topics, and a full discussion is well beyond the scope of this book. In this chapter, we touch on a few important topics in this area.

23.1 CYBERCRIME AND COMPUTER CRIME The bulk of this book examines technical approaches to the detection, prevention, and recovery from computer and network attacks. One other tool is the deterrent factor of law enforcement. Many types of computer attacks can be considered crimes and, as such, carry criminal sanctions. This section begins with a classification of types of computer crime and then looks at some of the unique law-enforcement challenges of dealing with computer crime.

Types of Computer Crime Computer crime, or cybercrime, is a term used broadly to describe criminal activity in which computers or computer networks are a tool, a target, or a place of criminal activity.1 These categories are not exclusive, and many activities can be characterized as falling in one or more categories. The term cybercrime has a connotation of the use of networks specifically, whereas computer crime may or may not involve networks. The U.S. Department of Justice [DOJ00] categorizes computer crime based on the role that the computer plays in the criminal activity, as follows: • Computers as targets: This form of crime targets a computer system, to acquire information stored on that computer system, to control the target system without authorization or payment (theft of service), or to alter the integrity of data or interfere with the availability of the computer or server. Using the terminology of Chapter 1, this form of crime involves an attack on data integrity, system integrity, data confidentiality, privacy, or availability. • Computers as storage devices: Computers can be used to further unlawful activity by using a computer or a computer device as a passive storage medium. For example, the computer can be used to store stolen password lists,

1

This definition is from the New York Law School Course on Cybercrime, Cyberterrorism, and Digital Law Enforcement (information-retrieval.info/cybercrime/index.html).

23.1 / CYBERCRIME AND COMPUTER CRIME

23-3

credit card or calling card numbers, proprietary corporate information, pornographic image files, or “warez” (pirated commercial software). • Computers as communications tools: Many of the crimes falling within this category are simply traditional crimes that are committed online. Examples include the illegal sale of prescription drugs, controlled substances, alcohol, and guns; fraud; gambling; and child pornography. A more specific list of crimes, shown in Table 23.1, is defined in the international Convention on Cybercrime.2 This is a useful list because it represents an international consensus on what constitutes computer crime, or cybercrime, and what crimes are considered important. Yet another categorization is used in the CERT 2006 annual E-crime Survey, the results of which are shown in Table 23.2. The figures in the second column indicate the percentage of respondents who report at least one incident in the corresponding row category. Entries in the remaining three columns indicate the percentage of respondents who reported a given source for an attack.3

Law Enforcement Challenges The deterrent effect of law enforcement on computer and network attacks correlates with the success rate of criminal arrest and prosecution. The nature of cybercrime is such that consistent success is extraordinarily difficult. To see this, consider what [KSHE06] refers to as the vicious cycle of cybercrime, involving law enforcement agencies, cybercriminals, and cybercrime victims (Figure 23.1). For law enforcement agencies, cybercrime presents some unique difficulties. Proper investigation requires a fairly sophisticated grasp of the technology. Although some agencies, particularly larger agencies, are catching up in this area, many jurisdictions lack investigators knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with this kind of crime. Lack of resources represents another handicap. Some cybercrime investigations require considerable computer processing power, communications capacity, and storage capacity, which may be beyond the budget of individual jurisdictions. The global nature of cybercrime is an additional obstacle: Many crimes will involve perpetrators who are remote from the target system, in another jurisdiction or even another country. A lack of collaboration and cooperation with remote law enforcement agencies can greatly hinder an investigation. Initiatives such as the international Convention on Cybercrime are a promising sign. The Convention at least introduces a common terminology for crimes and a framework for harmonizing laws globally.

2

The 2001 Convention on Cybercrime is the first international treaty seeking to address Internet crimes by harmonizing national laws, improving investigative techniques, and increasing cooperation among nations. It was developed by the Council of Europe and has been ratified by 43 nations, including the United States. The Convention includes a list of crimes that each signatory state must transpose into its own law. 3 Note that the sum of the figures in the last three columns for a given row may exceed 100%, because a respondent may report multiple incidents in multiple source categories (e.g., a respondent experiences both insider and outsider denial-of-service attacks).

23-4

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

Table 23.1 Cybercrimes Cited in the Convention on Cybercrime Article 2 Illegal access The access to the whole or any part of a computer system without right. Article 3 Illegal interception The interception without right, made by technical means, of non-public transmissions of computer data to, from or within a computer system, including electromagnetic emissions from a computer system carrying such computer data. Article 4 Data interference The damaging, deletion, deterioration, alteration or suppression of computer data without right. Article 5 System interference The serious hindering without right of the functioning of a computer system by inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting, deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer data. Article 6 Misuse of devices a. The production, sale, procurement for use, import, distribution or otherwise making available of:

i. A device, including a computer program, designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in accordance with the above Articles 2 through 5;

ii. A computer password, access code, or similar data by which the whole or any part of a computer system is capable of being accessed, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in the above Articles 2 through 5; and

b. The possession of an item referred to in paragraphs a.i or ii above, with intent that it be used for the purpose of committing any of the offences established in the above Articles 2 through 5. A Party may require by law that a number of such items be possessed before criminal liability attaches. Article 7 Computer-related forgery The input, alteration, deletion, or suppression of computer data, resulting in inauthentic data with the intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal purposes as if it were authentic, regardless whether or not the data is directly readable and intelligible. Article 8 Computer-related fraud The causing of a loss of property to another person by:

a. Any input, alteration, deletion or suppression of computer data; b. Any interference with the functioning of a computer system, with fraudulent or dishonest intent of procuring, without right, an economic benefit for oneself or for another person. Article 9 Offenses related to child pornography a. Producing child pornography for the purpose of its distribution through a computer system;

b. c. d. e.

Offering or making available child pornography through a computer system; Distributing or transmitting child pornography through a computer system; Procuring child pornography through a computer system for oneself or for another person; Possessing child pornography in a computer system or on a computer-data storage medium.

Article 10 Infringements of copyright and related rights Article 11 Attempt and aiding or abetting Aiding or abetting the commission of any of the offences established in accordance with the above Articles 2 through 10 of the present Convention with intent that such offence be committed. An attempt to commit any of the offences established in accordance with Articles 3 through 5, 7, 8, and 9.1.a and c. of this Convention.

23.1 / CYBERCRIME AND COMPUTER CRIME

23-5

Table 23.2 CERT 2006 E-Crime Watch Survey Results Committed (net %)

Insider (%)

Outsider (%)

Source Unknown (%)

Theft of intellectual property

30

63

45

5

Theft of other (proprietary) info including customer records, financial records, etc.

36

56

49

9

Denial of service attacks

36

0

84

20

Virus, worms or other malicious code

72

23

80

16

Fraud (credit card fraud, etc.)

29

47

69

18

Identity theft of customer

19

46

79

4

Illegal generation of spam e-mail

40

10

78

20

Phishing (someone posing as your company online in an attempt to gain personal data from your subscribers or employees)

31

0

77

26

Unauthorized access to/use of information, systems or networks

60

47

60

13

Sabotage: deliberate disruption, deletion, or destruction of information, systems, or networks

33

49

41

15

Extortion

33

49

41

15

Web site defacement

14

22

78

6

Zombie machines on organization’s network/bots/use of network by BotNets

20

16

72

28

Intentional exposure of private or sensitive information

11

71

36

7

Spyware (not including adware)

51

17

73

17

Other

11

50

43

21

The relative lack of success in bringing cybercriminals to justice has led to an increase in their numbers, boldness, and the global scale of their operations. It is difficult to profile cybercriminals in the way that is often done with other types of repeat offenders. The cybercriminal tends to be young and very computer-savvy, but the range of behavioral characteristics is wide. Further, there exist no cybercriminal databases that can point investigators to likely suspects. The success of cybercriminals, and the relative lack of success of law enforcement, influence the behavior of cybercrime victims. As with law enforcement, many organizations that may be the target of attack have not invested sufficiently in technical, physical, and human-factor resources to prevent attacks. Reporting rates tend to be low because of a lack of confidence in law enforcement, a concern about corporate reputation, and a concern about civil liability. The low reporting

23-6

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

Characteristics of law enforcement agencies

Failure to catch up with cybercrime technologies Inexperience with cybercrimes Inability to solve cybercrimes Lack of collaboration with industry

Lack of collaborations/global cooperation

Characteristics of cybercrime victims Lack of confidence with law enforcement agencies Weak defense mechanisms

Characteristics of cybercriminals Globalization of cybercrime

Increased success/confidence

Low reporting rates Compliance with cybercriminal's demands

Sophisticated technology Links with organized crime Expertise/experience Unique profiles

Figure 23.1 The Vicious Cycle of Cybercrime

rates and the reluctance to work with law enforcement on the part of victims feeds into the handicaps under which law enforcement works, completing the vicious cycle.

Working With Law Enforcement Executive management and security administrators need to look upon law enforcement as another resource and tool, alongside technical, physical, and human-factor resources. The successful use of law enforcement depends much more on people skills than technical skills. Management needs to understand the criminal investigation process, the inputs that investigators need, and the ways in which the victim can contribute positively to the investigation.

23.2 / INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

23-7

23.2 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY The U.S. legal system, and legal systems generally, distinguish three primary types of property: • Real property: Land and things permanently attached to the land, such as trees, buildings, and stationary mobile homes. • Personal property: Personal effects, moveable property and goods, such as cars, bank accounts, wages, securities, a small business, furniture, insurance policies, jewelry, patents, pets, and season baseball tickets. • Intellectual property: Any intangible asset that consists of human knowledge and ideas. Examples include software, data, novels, sound recordings, the design of a new type of mousetrap, or a cure for a disease. This section focuses on the computer security aspects of intellectual property.

Types of Intellectual Property There are three main types of intellectual property for which legal protection is available: copyrights, trademarks, and patents. The legal protection is against infringement, which is the invasion of the rights secured by copyrights, trademarks, and patents.The right to seek civil recourse against anyone infringing his or her property is granted to the IP owner. Depending upon the type of IP, infringement may vary (Figure 23.2). COPYRIGHTS Copyright law protects the tangible or fixed expression of an idea, not the idea itself. A creator can claim copyright, and file for the copyright at a national government copyright office, if the following conditions are fulfilled:4 • The proposed work is original. • The creator has put this original idea into a concrete form, such as hard copy (paper), software, or multimedia form. Examples of items that may be copyrighted include the following [BRAU01]: • Literary works: Novels, nonfiction prose, poetry, newspaper articles and newspapers, magazine articles and magazines, catalogs, brochures, ads (text), and compilations such as business directories • Musical works: Songs, advertising jingles, and instrumentals • Dramatic works: Plays, operas, and skits • Pantomimes and choreographic works: Ballets, modern dance, jazz dance, and mime works

4 Copyright is automatically assigned to newly created works in countries that subscribe to the Berne convention, which encompasses the vast majority of nations. Some countries, such as the United States, provide additional legal protection if the work is registered.

23-8

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

Patents Unauthorized making, using or selling

Trademarks Unauthorized use or colorable imitation

Copyrights Unauthorized use

Figure 23.2 Intellectual Property Infringement

• Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works: Photographs, posters, maps, paintings, drawings, graphic art, display ads, cartoon strips and cartoon characters, stuffed animals, statues, paintings, and works of fine art • Motion pictures and other audiovisual works: Movies, documentaries, travelogues, training films and videos, television shows, television ads, and interactive multimedia works • Sound recordings: Recordings of music, sound, or words • Architectural works: Building designs, whether in the form of architectural plans, drawings, or the constructed building itself • Software-related works: Computer software, software documentation and manuals, training manuals, other manual The copyright owner has the following exclusive rights, protected against infringement: • Reproduction right: Lets the owner make copies of a work • Modification right: Also known as the derivative-works right, concerns modifying a work to create a new or derivative work • Distribution right: Lets the owner publicly sell, rent, lease, or lend copies of the work. • Public-performance right: Applies mainly to live performances • Public-display right: Lets the owner publicly show a copy of the work directly or by means of a film, slide, or television image PATENTS A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor. The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the U.S. statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the

23.2 / INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

23-9

United States. Similar wording appears in the statutes of other nations. There are three types of patents: • Utility patents: May be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof; • Design patents: May be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and • Plant patents: May be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant. An example of a patent from the computer security realm is the RSA publickey cryptosystem. From the time it was granted in 1983 until the patent expired in 2000, the patent holder, RSA Security, was entitled to receive a fee for each implementation of RSA. TRADEMARKS A trademark is a word, name, symbol, or device that is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms trademark and mark are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks. Trademark rights may be used to prevent others from using a confusingly similar mark, but not to prevent others from making the same goods or from selling the same goods or services under a clearly different mark.

Intellectual Property Relevant to Network and Computer Security A number of forms of intellectual property are relevant in the context of network and computer security. Here we mention some of the most prominent: • Software: This includes programs produced by vendors of commercial software (e.g., operating systems, utility programs, applications) as well as shareware, proprietary software created by an organization for internal use, and software produced by individuals. For all such software, copyright protection is available if desired. In some cases, a patent protection may also be appropriate. • Databases: A database may consist of data that is collected and organized in such a fashion that it has potential commercial value. An example is an economic forecasting database. Such databases may be protected by copyright. • Digital content: This category includes audio files, video files, multimedia, courseware, Web site content, and any other original digital work that can be presented in some fashion using computers or other digital devices. • Algorithms: An example of a patentable algorithm, previously cited, is the RSA public-key cryptosystem.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has had a profound effect on the protection of digital content rights in both the United States and worldwide. The

23-10

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

DMCA, signed into law in 1998, is designed to implement World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties, signed in 1996. In essence, DMCA strengthens the protection of copyrighted materials in digital format. The DMCA encourages copyright owners to use technological measures to protect copyrighted works. These measures fall into two categories: measures that prevent access to the work and measures that prevent copying of the work. Further, the law prohibits attempts to bypass such measures. Specifically, the law states that “no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” Among other effects of this clause, it prohibits almost all unauthorized decryption of content. The law further prohibits the manufacture, release, or sale of products, services, and devices that can crack encryption designed to thwart either access to or copying of material unauthorized by the copyright holder. Both criminal and civil penalties apply to attempts to circumvent technological measures and to assist in such circumvention. Certain actions are exempted from the provisions of the DMCA and other copyright laws, including the following: • Fair use: This concept is not tightly defined. It is intended to permit others to perform, show, quote, copy, and otherwise distribute portions of the work for certain purposes. These purposes include review, comment, and discussion of copyrighted works. • Reverse engineering: Reverse engineering of a software product is allowed if the user has the right to use a copy of the program and if the purpose of the reverse engineering is not to duplicate the functionality of the program but rather to achieve interoperability. • Encryption research: “Good faith” encryption research is allowed. In essence, this exemption allows decryption attempts to advance the development of encryption technology. • Security testing: This is the access of a computer or network for the good faith testing, investigating, or correcting a security flaw or vulnerability, with the authorization of the owner or operator. • Personal privacy: It is generally permitted to bypass technological measures if that is the only reasonable way to prevent the access to result in the revealing or recording of personally identifying information. Despite the exemptions built into the Act, there is considerable concern, especially in the research and academic communities, that the act inhibits legitimate security and encryption research. These parties feel that DMCA stifles innovation and academic freedom and is a threat to open source software development [ACM04].

Digital Rights Management Digital Rights Management (DRM) refers to systems and procedures that ensure that holders of digital rights are clearly identified and receive the stipulated payment for their works. The systems and procedures may also impose further restrictions on the use of digital objects, such as inhibiting printing or prohibiting further distribution.

23.2 / INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

23-11

There is no single DRM standard or architecture. DRM encompasses a variety of approaches to intellectual property management and enforcement by providing secure and trusted automated services to control the distribution and use of content. In general, the objective is to provide mechanisms for the complete content management life cycle (creation, subsequent contribution by others, access, distribution, use), including the management of rights information associated with the content. DRM systems should meet the following objectives: 1. Provide persistent content protection against unauthorized access to the digital content, limiting access to only those with the proper authorization. 2. Support a variety of digital content types (e.g., music files, video streams, digital books, images). 3. Support content use on a variety of platforms, (e.g., PCs, PDAs, iPods, mobile phones). 4. Support content distribution on a variety of media, including CD-ROMs, DVDs, and flash memory. Figure 23.3, based on [LIU03], illustrates a typical DRM model in terms of the principal users of DRM systems:

C

le

ar

in

gh

ou

se

• Content provider: Holds the digital rights of the content and wants to protect these rights. Examples are a music record label and a movie studio. • Distributor: Provides distribution channels, such as an online shop or a Web retailer. For example, an online distributor receives the digital content from

Dig lice ital nse

ing Pay y fees lt a roy

ut ib tr is D Information flow Money flow

Figure 23.3 DRM Components

m su on C

ted tec Pro ntent co

er

Pro t con ected ten t

er

lice Requ nse iri and ng pay ing

Paying distribution

pr o

C

on t vi ent de r

ge Usa es u r l

23-12

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

the content provider and creates a Web catalog presenting the content and rights metadata for the content promotion. • Consumer: Uses the system to access the digital content by retrieving downloadable or streaming content through the distribution channel and then paying for the digital license. The player/viewer application used by the consumer takes charge of initiating license request to the clearinghouse and enforcing the content usage rights. • Clearinghouse: Handles the financial transaction for issuing the digital license to the consumer and pays royalty fees to the content provider and distribution fees to the distributor accordingly. The clearinghouse is also responsible for logging license consumptions for every consumer. In this model, the distributor need not enforce the access rights. Instead, the content provider protects the content in such a way (typically encryption) that the consumer must purchase a digital license and access capability from the clearinghouse. The clearinghouse consults usage rules provided by the content provider to determine what access is permitted and the fee for a particular type of access. Having collected the fee, the clearinghouse credits the content provider and distributor appropriately. Figure 23.4, from [IANN06], shows a generic system architecture to support DRM functionality. The system is access by parties in three roles. Rights holders are the content providers, who either created the content or have acquired rights to the content. Service providers include distributors and clearinghouses. Consumers are

Rights holders

Service providers

Consumers

Service interface

Identity management

Content management

Rights management

Device Systems interface Security Encryption

Authentication Billing Delivery Authorization Payments

Device

Device

Figure 23.4 DRM System Architecture

23.3 / PRIVACY

23-13

those who purchase the right to access to content for specific uses. There is system interface to the services provided by the DRM system: • Identity management: Mechanisms to uniquely identify entities, such as parties and content • Content management: Processes and functions needed to manage the content lifestyle • Rights management: Processes and functions needed to manage rights, rights holders, and associated requirements Below these management modules are a set of common functions. The security/encryption module provides functions to encrypt content and to sign license agreements. The identity management service makes use of the authentication and authorization functions to identify all parties in the relationship. Using these functions, the identity management service includes the following: • • • •

Allocation of unique party identifiers User profile and preferences User’s device management Public-key management

Billing/payments functions deal with the collection of usage fees from consumers and the distribution of payments to rights holders and distributors. Delivery functions deal with the delivery of content to consumers.

23.3 PRIVACY An issue with considerable overlap with computer security is that of privacy. On the one hand, the scale and interconnectedness of personal information collected and stored in information systems has increased dramatically, motivated by law enforcement, national security, and economic incentives. The last mentioned has been perhaps the main driving force. In a global information economy, it is likely that the most economically valuable electronic asset is aggregations of information on individuals [JUDY09]. On the other hand, individuals have become increasingly aware of the extent to which government agencies, businesses, and even Internet users have access to their personal information and private details about their lives and activities. Concerns about the extent to which personal privacy has been and may be compromised have led to a variety of legal and technical approaches to reinforcing privacy rights.

Privacy Law and Regulation A number of international organizations and national governments have introduced laws and regulations intended to protect individual privacy. We look at two such initiatives in this subsection. E UROPEAN U NION DATA P ROTECTION D IRECTIVE In 1998, the EU adopted the Directive on Data Protection to both (1) ensure that member states protected

23-14

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

fundamental privacy rights when processing personal information, and (2) prevent member states from restricting the free flow of personal information within the EU. The Directive is not itself a law, but requires member states to enact laws encompassing its terms. The Directive is organized around the following principles of personal information use: • Notice: Organizations must notify individuals what personal information they are collecting, the uses of that information, and what choices the individual may have. • Consent: Individuals must be able to choose whether and how their personal information is used by, or disclosed to, third parties. They have the right not to have any sensitive information collected or used without express permission, including race, religion, health, union membership, beliefs, and sex life. • Consistency: Organizations may use personal information only in accordance with the terms of the notice given the data subject and any choices with respect to its use exercised by the subject. • Access: Individuals must have the right and ability to access their information and correct, modify, or delete any portion of it. • Security: Organizations must provide adequate security, using technical and other means, to protect the integrity and confidentiality of personal information. • Onward transfer: Third parties receiving personal information must provide the same level of privacy protection as the organization from whom the information is obtained. • Enforcement: The Directive grants a private right of action to data subjects when organizations do not follow the law. In addition, each EU member has a regulatory enforcement agency concerned with privacy rights enforcement. UNITED STATES PRIVACY INITIATIVES The first comprehensive privacy legislation adopted in the United States was the Privacy Act of 1974, which dealt with personal information collected and used by federal agencies. The Act is intended to 1. Permit individuals to determine what records pertaining to them are collected, maintained, used, or disseminated. 2. Permit individuals to forbid records obtained for one purpose to be used for another purpose without consent. 3. Permit individuals to obtain access to records pertaining to them and to correct and amend such records as appropriate. 4. Ensure that agencies collect, maintain, and use personal information in a manner that ensures that the information is current, adequate, relevant, and not excessive for its intended use. 5. Create a private right of action for individuals whose personal information is not used in accordance with the Act.

23.3 / PRIVACY

23-15

As with all privacy laws and regulations, there are exceptions and conditions attached to this Act, such as criminal investigations, national security concerns, and conflicts between competing individual rights of privacy. While the 1974 Privacy Act covers government records, a number of other U.S. laws have been enacted that cover other areas, including the following: • Banking and financial records: Personal banking information is protected in certain ways by a number of laws, including the recent Financial Services Modernization Act. • Credit reports: The Fair Credit Reporting Act confers certain rights on individuals and obligations on credit reporting agencies. • Medical and health insurance records: A variety of laws have been in place for decades dealing with medical records privacy. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) created significant new rights for patients to protect and access their own health information. • Children’s privacy: The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act places restrictions on online organizations in the collection of data from children under the age of 13. • Electronic communications: The Electronic Communications Privacy Act generally prohibits unauthorized and intentional interception of wire and electronic communications during the transmission phase and unauthorized accessing of electronically stored wire and electronic communications.

Organizational Response Organizations need to deploy both management controls and technical measures to comply with laws and regulations concerning privacy as well as to implement corporate policies concerning employee privacy. ISO 17799 (Code of Practice for Information Security Management) states the requirement as follows:

ISO 17799: Data protection and privacy of personal information An organizational data protection and privacy policy should be developed and implemented. This policy should be communicated to all persons involved in the processing of personal information. Compliance with this policy and all relevant data protection legislation and regulations requires appropriate management structure and control. Often this is best achieved by the appointment of a responsible person, such as a data protection officer, who should provide guidance to managers, users, and service providers on their individual responsibilities and the specific procedures that should be followed. Responsibility for handling personal information and ensuring awareness of the data protection principles should be dealt with in accordance with relevant legislation and regulations. Appropriate technical and organizational measures to protect personal information should be implemented.

23-16

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

Privacy and Data Surveillance The demands of homeland security and counterterrorism have imposed new threats to personal privacy. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have become increasingly aggressive in using data surveillance techniques to fulfill their mission. In addition, private organization are exploiting a number of trends to increase their ability to build detailed profiles of individuals, including the spread of the Internet, the increase in electronic payment methods, near-universal use of cellular phone communications, ubiquitous computation, sensor webs, and so on. Both policy and technical approaches are needed to protect privacy when both government and nongovernment organizations seek to learn as much as possible about individuals. In terms of technical approaches, the requirements for privacy protection for information systems can be addressed in the context of database security. That is, the approaches that are appropriate for privacy protection involve technical means that have been developed for database security. A specific proposal for a database security approach to privacy protection is outlined in [POPP06] and illustrated in Figure 23.5. The privacy appliance is a tamper-resistant, cryptographically protected device that is interposed between a database and the access interface, analogous to a firewall or intrusion prevention device. The device implements privacy protection functions, including verifying the user’s access permissions and credentials and creating an audit log. Some of the specific functions of the appliance are as follows: • Data transformation: This function encodes or encrypts portions of the data so as to preserve privacy but still allow data analysis functions needed for effective use. An example of such data analysis functions is the detection of terrorist activity patterns. • Anonymization: This function removes specific identifying information from query results, such as last name and telephone number, but creates some sort of anonymized unique identifier so that analysts can detect connections between queries. • Selective revelation: This is a method for minimizing exposure of individual information while enabling continuous analysis of potentially interconnected data. The function initially reveals information to the analyst only in sanitized form, that is, in terms of statistics and categories that do not reveal (directly or indirectly) anyone’s private information. If the analyst sees reason for concern, he or she can follow up by seeking permission to get more precise information. This permission would be granted if the initial information provides sufficient cause to allow the revelation of more information, under appropriate legal and policy guidelines. • Immutable audit: A tamper-resistant method that identifies where data go and who has seen the data. The audit function automatically and permanently records all data accesses, with strong protection against deletion, modification, and unauthorized use. • Associative memory: This is a software module that can recognize patterns and make connections between pieces of data that the human user may have missed or didn’t know existed. With this method, it can discover relationships quickly between data points found in massive amounts of data.

Contains associative memory index (AMI) Update in real time

Privacy appliance

Data source

User query

Response

Government owned

Cross-source privacy appliance

Independently operated

Authentication Authorization Anonymization Immutable audit trail Inference checking

Figure 23.5 Privacy Appliance Concept

Privacy appliance

Privacy appliance

Data source

Data source

Private or agency owned Selective revelation Data transformation Policy is embedded Create AMI

23-17

23-18

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

As Figure 23.5 indicates, the owner of a database installs a privacy appliance tailored to the database content and structure and to its intended use by outside organizations. An independently operated privacy appliance can interact with multiple databases from multiple organizations to collect and interconnect data for their ultimate use by law enforcement, an intelligence user, or other appropriate user.

23.4 ETHICAL ISSUES Because of the ubiquity and importance of information systems in organizations of all types, there are many potential misuses and abuses of information and electronic communication that create privacy and security problems. In addition to questions of legality, misuse and abuse raise concerns of ethics. Ethics refers to a system of moral principles that relates to the benefits and harms of particular actions, and to the rightness and wrongness of motives and ends of those actions. In this section, we look at ethical issues as they relate to computer and information system security.

Ethics and the IS Professions To a certain extent, a characterization of what constitutes ethical behavior for those who work with or have access to information systems is not unique to this context. The basic ethical principles developed by civilizations apply. However, there are some unique considerations surrounding computers and information systems. First, computer technology makes possible a scale of activities not possible before. This includes a larger scale of recordkeeping, particularly on individuals, with the ability to develop finer-grained personal information collection and more precise data mining and data matching. The expanded scale of communications and the expanded scale of interconnection brought about by the Internet magnify the power of an individual to do harm. Second, computer technology has involved the creation of new types of entities for which no agreed ethical rules have previously been formed, such as databases, Web browsers, chat rooms, cookies, and so on. Further, it has always been the case that those with special knowledge or special skills have additional ethical obligations beyond those common to all humanity. We can illustrate this in terms of an ethical hierarchy (Figure 23.6), based on one discussed in [GOTT99]. At the top of the hierarchy are the ethical values professionals share with all human beings, such as integrity, fairness, and justice. Being a professional with special training imposes additional ethical obligations with respect to those affected by his or her work. General principles applicable to all professionals arise at this level. Finally, each profession has associated with it specific ethical values and obligations related to the specific knowledge of those in the profession and the powers that they have to affect others. Most professions embody all of these levels in a professional code of conduct, a subject discussed subsequently.

Ethical Issues Related to Computers and Information Systems Let us turn now more specifically to the ethical issues that arise from computer technology. Computers have become the primary repository of both personal

23.4 / ETHICAL ISSUES

Hu

man ity

Pro

fess

Eac

hp

rofe

ion

alis

m

ssio

n

23-19

y, grit Inte ness, fair e, ... car

, are of c ng r e ord ell-bei her Hig cietal w so

e iqu -un d n s o i n s a dard fess Pro andard , stan ethics st alism de of on co essi n's f o pr ofessio r in p

Figure 23.6 The Ethical Hierarchy

information and negotiable assets, such as bank records, securities records, and other financial information. Other types of databases, both statistical and otherwise, are assets with considerable value. These assets can only be viewed, created, and altered by technical and automated means. Those who can understand and exploit the technology, plus those who have obtained access permission, have power related to those assets. A classic paper on computers and ethics [PARK88b] points out that ethical issues arise as the result of the roles of computers, such as the following: • Repositories and processors of information: Unauthorized use of otherwise unused computer services or of information stored in computers raises questions of appropriateness or fairness. • Producers of new forms and types of assets: For example, computer programs are entirely new types of assets, possibly not subject to the same concepts of ownership as other assets. • Instruments of acts: To what degree must computer services and users of computers, data, and programs be responsible for the integrity and appropriateness of computer output? • Symbols of intimidation and deception: The images of computers as thinking machines, absolute truth producers, infallible, subject to blame, and as anthropomorphic replacements of humans who err should be carefully considered.

23-20

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

Table 23.3 Potential Ethical Dilemmas for Information Systems Privacy internal to the firm Privacy external to the firm Technology Intrusion

Computer surveillance Employee monitoring Hacking Moonlighting Proprietary rights

Ownership Issues

Conflicts of interest Software copyrights Use of company assets for personal benefit Theft of data, software, or hardware Embezzlement, fraud and abuse, such as through EFTs or ATMs

Legal Issues and Social Responsibilities

Accuracy and timeliness of data Over-rated system capabilities and “smart” computers Monopoly of data Employee sabotage

Personnel Issues

Ergonomics and human factors Training to avoid job obsolescence

Another listing of ethical issues, from [HARR90], is shown in Table 23.3. Both of these lists are concerned with balancing professional responsibilities with ethical or moral responsibilities. We cite two areas here of the types of ethical questions that face a computing or IS professional. The first is that IS professionals may find themselves in situations where their ethical duty as professionals comes into conflict with loyalty to their employer. Such a conflict may give rise for an employee to consider “blowing the whistle,” or exposing a situation that can harm the public or a company’s customers. For example, a software developer may know that a product is scheduled to ship with inadequate testing to meet the employer’s deadlines. The decision of whether to blow the whistle is one of the most difficult that an IS professional can face. Organizations have a duty to provide alternative, less extreme opportunities for the employee, such as an in-house ombudsperson coupled with a commitment not to penalize employees for exposing problems in-house. Additionally, professional societies should provide a mechanism whereby society members can get advice on how to proceed. Another example of an ethical question concerns a potential conflict of interest. For example, if a consultant has a financial interest in a certain vendor, this should be revealed to any client if that vendor’s products or services might be recommended by the consultant.

Codes of Conduct Unlike scientific and engineering fields, ethics cannot be reduced to precise laws or sets of facts. Although an employer or a client of a professional can expect that the

23.4 / ETHICAL ISSUES

23-21

professional has an internal moral compass, many areas of conduct may present ethical ambiguities. To provide guidance to professionals and to articulate what employers and customers have a right to expect, a number of professional societies have adopted ethical codes of conduct. A professional code of conduct can serve the following functions [GOTT99]: 1. A code can serve two inspirational functions: as a positive stimulus for ethical conduct on the part of the professional, and to instill confidence in the customer or user of an IS product or service. However, a code that stops at just providing inspirational language is likely to be vague and open to an abundance of interpretations. 2. A code can be educational. It informs professionals about what should be their commitment to undertake a certain level of quality of work and their responsibility for the well being of users of their product and the public, to the extent the product may affect nonusers. The code also serves to educate managers on their responsibility to encourage and support employee ethical behavior and on their own ethical responsibilities. 3. A code provides a measure of support for a professional whose decision to act ethically in a situation may create conflict with an employer or customer. 4. A code can be a means of deterrence and discipline. A professional society can use a code as a justification for revoking membership or even a professional license. An employee can use a code as a basis for a disciplinary action. 5. A code can enhance the profession’s public image, if it is seen to be widely honored. We illustrate the concept of a professional code of ethics for computer professionals with three specific examples. The ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (Figure 23.7) applies to computer scientists.5 The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Code of Ethics (Figure 23.8) applies to computer engineers as well as other types of electrical and electronic engineers. The AITP (Association of Information Technology Professionals, formerly the Data Processing Management Association) Standard of Conduct (Figure 23.9) applies to managers of computer systems and projects. A number of common themes emerge from these codes, including (1) dignity and worth of other people; (2) personal integrity and honesty; (3) responsibility for work; (4) confidentiality of information; (5) public safety, health, and welfare; (6) participation in professional societies to improve standards of the profession; and (7) the notion that public knowledge and access to technology is equivalent to social power. All three codes place their emphasis on the responsibility of professionals to other people, which, after all, is the central meaning of ethics. This emphasis on people rather than machines or software is to the good. However, the codes make little specific mention of the subject technology, namely computers and information

5

Figure 23.7 is an abridged version of the ACM Code.

23-22

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS 1. GENERAL MORAL IMPERATIVES. 1.1 Contribute to society and human well-being. 1.2 Avoid harm to others. 1.3 Be honest and trustworthy. 1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate. 1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent. 1.6 Give proper credit for intellectual property. 1.7 Respect the privacy of others. 1.8 Honor confidentiality. 2. MORE SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES. 2.1 Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness and dignity in both the process and products of professional work. 2.2 Acquire and maintain professional competence. 2.3 Know and respect existing laws pertaining to professional work. 2.4 Accept and provide appropriate professional review. 2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computer systems and their impacts, including analysis of possible risks. 2.6 Honor contracts, agreements, and assigned responsibilities. 2.7 Improve public understanding of computing and its consequences. 2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when authorized to do so. 3. ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP IMPERATIVES. 3.1 Articulate social responsibilities of members of an organizational unit and encourage full acceptance of those responsibilities. 3.2 Manage personnel and resources to design and build information systems that enhance the quality of working life. 3.3 Acknowledge and support proper and authorized uses of an organization’s computing and communication resources. 3.4 Ensure that users and those who will be affected by a system have their needs clearly articulated during the assessment and design of requirements; later the system must be validated to meet requirements. 3.5 Articulate and support policies that protect the dignity of users and others affected by a computing system. 3.6 Create opportunities for members of the organization to learn the principles and limitations of computer systems. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. 4.1 Uphold and promote the principles of this Code. 4.2 Treat violations of this code as inconsistent with membership in the ACM. Figure 23.7 ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (Copyright ©1997, Association for Computing Machinery, Inc.)

systems. That is, the approach is quite generic and could apply to most professions and does not fully reflect the unique ethical problems related to the development and use of computer and IS technology. For example, these codes do not specifically deal with the issues raised in Table 23.3 or by [PARK88b] listed in the preceding subsection.

23.4 / ETHICAL ISSUES

23-23

We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:

1. to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment; to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist; to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data; to reject bribery in all its forms; to improve the understanding of technology, its appropriate application, and potential consequences; to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations; to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others; to treat fairly all persons regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, disability, age, or national origin; to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action; to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics

Figure 23.8 IEEE Code of Ethics (Copyright ©2006, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) In recognition of my obligation to management I shall:

• Keep my personal knowledge up-to-date and insure that proper expertise is available when needed.

• Share my knowledge with others and present factual and objective information to management to the best of my ability.

• Accept full responsibility for work that I perform. • Not misuse the authority entrusted to me. • Not misrepresent or withhold information concerning the capabilities of equipment, software or systems.

• Not take advantage of the lack of knowledge or inexperience on the part of others. In recognition of my obligation to my fellow members and the profession I shall:

• Be honest in all my professional relationships. • Take appropriate action in regard to any illegal or unethical practices that come to my attention. However, I will bring charges against any person only when I have reasonable basis for believing in the truth of the allegations and without any regard to personal interest. • Endeavor to share my special knowledge. • Cooperate with others in achieving understanding and in identifying problems. (continued) Figure 23.9 AITP Standard of Conduct (Copyright ©2006, Association of Information Technology Professionals)

23-24

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

• Not use or take credit for the work of others without specific acknowledgement and authorization.

• Not take advantage of the lack of knowledge or inexperience on the part of others for personal gain. In recognition of my obligation to society I shall:

• Protect the privacy and confidentiality of all information entrusted to me. • Use my skill and knowledge to inform the public in all areas of my expertise. • To the best of my ability, insure that the products of my work are used in a socially responsible way.

• Support, respect, and abide by the appropriate local, state, provincial, and federal laws. • Never misrepresent or withhold information that is germane to a problem or situation of public concern nor will I allow any such known information to remain unchallenged.

• Not use knowledge of a confidential or personal nature in any unauthorized manner or to achieve personal gain. In recognition of my obligation to my employer I shall:

• Make every effort to ensure that I have the most current knowledge and that the proper expertise is available when needed. Avoid conflict of interest and insure that my employer is aware of any potential conflicts. Present a fair, honest, and objective viewpoint. Protect the proper interests of my employer at all times. Protect the privacy and confidentiality of all information entrusted to me. Not misrepresent or withhold information that is germane to the situation. Not attempt to use the resources of my employer for personal gain or for any purpose without proper approval. • Not exploit the weakness of a computer system for personal gain or personal satisfaction.

• • • • • •

Figure 23.9 Continued

23.5 RECOMMENDED READING AND WEB SITES The following are useful articles on computer crime and cybercrime: [KSHE06], [CYMR06], and [TAVA00]. [BRAU01] provides a good introduction to copyrights, patents, and trademarks. [GIBB00] provides a concise description of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A useful introduction to Digital Rights Management is [LIU03]. [CAMP03] discusses legal aspects of DRM and describes some commercially available systems. [ISAT02] is an illuminating discussion of the relationship between security and privacy with suggestions on technical security measures to protect privacy. [GOTT99] provides a detailed discussion of the software engineering code of ethics and what it means to individuals in the profession. [CHAP06] is a thoughtful discussion of basic ethical issues related to the creation and use of information systems. [HARR90] is a detailed discussion of training employees on how to integrate ethics into decision making and behavior related to the use of information systems and computers. [ANDE93] is a very useful analysis of the practical implications of the ACM Code of Ethics, with a number of illustrative case studies.

23.6 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

23-25

ANDE93 Anderson, R., et al. “Using the New ACM Code of Ethics in Decision Making.” Communications of the ACM, February 1993. BRAU01 Braunfeld, R., and Wells, T. “Protecting Your Most Valuable Asset: Intellectual Property.” IT Pro, March/April 2000. CAMP03 Camp, L. “First Principles of Copyright for DRM Design.” IEEE Internet Computing, May/June 2003. CHAP06 Chapman, C. “Fundamental Ethics in Information Systems.” Proceedings of the 39th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2006. CYMR06 Team Cymru, “Cybercrime: An Epidemic.” ACM Queue, November 2006. GIBB00 Gibbs, J. “The Digital Millennium Copyright Act.” ACM Ubiquity, August 2000. GOTT99 Gotterbarn, D. “How the New Software Engineering Code of Ethics Affects You.” IEEE Software, November/December 1999. HARR90 Harrington, S., and McCollum, R. “Lessons from Corporate America Applied to Training in Computer Ethics.” Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computers and the Quality of Life (SIGCAS and SIGCAPH), September 1990. ISAT02 Information Science and Technology Study Group. “Security with Privacy,” DARPA Briefing on Security and Privacy, Dec. 2002. www.cs.berkeley.edu/~tygar/ papers/ISAT-final-briefing.pdf KSHE06 Kshetri, N. “The Simple Economics of Cybercrimes.” IEEE Security and Privacy, January/February 2006. LIU03 Liu, Q.; Safavi-Naini, R.; and Sheppard, N. “Digital Rights Management for Content Distribution.” Proceedings, Australasian Information Security Workshop 2003 (AISW2003), 2003. TAVA00 Tavani, H. “Defining the Boundaries of Computer Crime: Piracy, Break-Ins, and Sabotage in Cyberspace.” Computers and Society, September 2000.

Recommended Web Sites: • Criminal Justice Resources: CyberCrime: Excellent collection of links maintained by Michigan State University. • International High Technology Crime Investigation Association: A collaborative effort of law enforcement and the private sector. Contains useful set of links and other resources. • Computer Ethics Institute: Includes documents, case studies, and links.

23.6 KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS Key Terms code of conduct computer crime copyright cybercrime Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)

digital rights management ethics infringement intellectual property

patent privacy trademark

23-26

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

Review Questions 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8 23.9 23.10

Describe a classification of computer crime based on the role that the computer plays in the criminal activity. Define three types of property. Define three types of intellectual property. What are the basic conditions that must be fulfilled to claim a copyright? What rights does a copyright confer? Briefly describe the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. What is digital rights management? Describe the principal categories of users of digital rights management systems. What are the key principles embodied in the EU Directive on Data Protection? What functions can a professional code of conduct serve to fulfill?

Problems 23.1

23.2 23.3

23.4

23.5

23.6

23.7

23.8

For each of the cybercrimes cited in Table 23.1, indicate whether it falls into the category of computer as target, computer as storage device, or computer as communications tool. In the first case, indicate whether the crime is primarily an attack on data integrity, system integrity, data confidentiality, privacy, or availability. Repeat Problem 23.1 for Table 23.2. Review the results of a recent Computer Crime Survey such as the CSI/FBI or AusCERT surveys. What changes do they note in the types of crime reported? What differences are there between their results and those shown in Table 23.2? An early controversial use of the DCMA was its use in a case in the United States brought by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) in 2000 to attempt to suppress distribution of the DeCSS program and derivatives. These could be used circumvent the copy protection on commercial DVDs. Search for a brief description of this case and its outcome. Determine whether the MPAA was successful in suppressing details of the DeCSS descrambling algorithm. Consider a popular DRM system like Apple’s FairPlay, used to protect audio tracks purchased from the iTunes music store. If a person purchases a track from the iTunes store by an artist managed by a record company such as EMI, identify which company or person fulfils each of the DRM component roles shown in Figure 23.3. Table 23.4 lists the privacy guidelines issued by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Compare these guidelines to the categories the EU adopted in the Directive on Data Protection. Many countries now require organizations that collect personal information to publish a privacy policy detailing how they will handle and use such information. Obtain a copy of the privacy policy for an organization to which you have provided your personal details. Compare this policy with the lists of principles given in Section 23.3. Does this policy address all of these principles? Assume you are a midlevel systems administrator for one section of a larger organization. You try to encourage your users to have good password policies and you regularly run password-cracking tools to check that those in use are not guessable. You have become aware of a burst of hacker password-cracking activity recently. In a burst of enthusiasm you transfer the password files from a number of other sections of the organization and attempt to crack them. To your horror, you find that in one section for which you used to work (but now have rather strained relationships with), something like 40% of the passwords are guessable (including that of the vicepresident of the section, whose password is “pre$ident”!). You quietly sound out a few former colleagues and drop hints in the hope things might improve. A couple of weeks later you again transfer the password file over to analyze in the hope things

23.6 / KEY TERMS, REVIEW QUESTIONS, AND PROBLEMS

23-27

Table 23.4 OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Information Collection limitation There should be limits to the collection of personal data and any such data should be obtained by lawful and fair means and, where appropriate, with the knowledge or consent of the data subject. Data quality Personal data should be relevant to the purposes for which they are to be used, and, to the extent necessary for those purposes, should be accurate, complete and kept up-to-date. Purpose specification The purposes for which personal data are collected should be specified not later than at the time of data collection and the subsequent use limited to the fulfillment of those purposes or such others as are not incompatible with those purposes and as are specified on each occasion of change of purpose. Use limitation Personal data should not be disclosed, made available or otherwise used for purposes other than those specified in accordance with the preceding principle, except with the consent of the data subject or by the authority of law. Security safeguards Personal data should be protected by reasonable security safeguards against such risks as loss or unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification or disclosure of data. Openness There should be a general policy of openness about developments, practices and policies with respect to personal data. Means should be readily available of establishing the existence and nature of personal data, and the main purposes of their use, as well as the identity and usual residence of the data controller. Individual participation An individual should have the right: (a) to obtain from a data controller, or otherwise, confirmation of whether or not the data controller has data relating to him.

(b) to have communicated to him, data relating to him within a reasonable time; at a charge, if any, that is not excessive; in a reasonable manner; and in a form that is readily intelligible to him;

(c) to be given reasons if a request made under subparagraphs(a) and (b) is denied, and to be able to challenge such denial; and

(d) to challenge data relating to him and, if the challenge is successful to have the data erased, rectified, completed or amended. Accountability A data controller should be accountable for complying with measures which give effect to the principles stated above.

23.9

have improved. They haven’t. Unfortunately, this time one of your colleagues notices what you are doing. Being a rather “by the book” person, he notifies senior management, and that evening you find yourself being arrested on a charge of hacking and thrown out of a job. Did you do anything wrong? Which of the potential ethical dilemmas listed in Table 23.3 does this case illustrate? Briefly indicate what arguments you might use to defend your actions, Make reference to the Professional Codes of Conduct shown in Figures 23.7 through 23.9. Section 23.4 stated that the three ethical codes illustrated in this chapter (ACM, IEEE, AITP) share the common themes of dignity and worth of people; personal integrity; responsibility for work; confidentiality of information; public safety, health, and welfare; participation in professional societies; and knowledge about technology

23-28

CHAPTER 23 / LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS

23.10

23.11

23.12

related to social power. Construct a table that shows for each theme and for each code, the relevant clause or clauses in the code that address the theme. This book’s Web site includes a copy of the ACM Code of Professional Conduct from 1982. Compare this Code with the 1997 ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (Figure 23.7). a. Are there any elements in the 1982 Code not found in the 1997 Code? Propose a rationale for excluding these. b. Are there any elements in the 1997 Code not found in the 1982 Code? Propose a rationale for adding these. This book’s Web site includes a copy of the IEEE Code of Ethics from 1979. Compare this Code with the 2006 IEEE Code of Ethics (Figure 23.8). a. Are there any elements in the 1979 Code not found in the 2006 Code? Propose a rationale for excluding these. b. Are there any elements in the 2006 Code not found in the 1979 Code? Propose a rationale for adding these. This book’s Web site includes a copy of the 1999 Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice (Version 5.2) as recommended by an ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Task Force. Compare this Code with each of the three codes reproduced in this chapter (Figure 23.7 through 23.9). Comment in each case on the differences.

APPENDIX C SAGE EXERCISES By Dan Shumow University of Washington C.1 Getting Started With Sage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2 C.2 Programming With Sage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4 Input to the Interpreter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4 Data Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4 Mathematical Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6 Control Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7 C.3 Chapter 2: Classical Encryption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-8 C.4 Chapter 3: Block Ciphers And The Data Encryption Standard . . . . . . . . C-9 C.5 Chapter 4: Basic Concepts In Number Theory And Finite Fields . . . . . C-10 C.6 Chapter 5: Advanced Encryption Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-12 C.7 Chapter 6: Pseudorandom Number Generation And Stream Ciphers . . C-13 C.8 Chapter 8: Number Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-14 C.9 Chapter 9: Public-Key Cryptography And RSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-18 C.10 Chapter 10: Other Public-Key Cryptosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-19 C.11 Chapter 11: Cryptographic Hash Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-22 C.12 Chapter 13: Digital Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-22

C-1

C-2

APPENDIX C / SAGE EXERCISES

This appendix contains a number of exercises that reinforce cryptographic concepts, organized by the chapter in which those concepts were discussed. All the exercises use Sage. We begin with a discussion of how to get started using Sage and a brief introduction to the syntax and operations.

C.1 GETTING STARTED WITH SAGE Sage is a free open source program that collects many open source math packages into one easily usable environment. The following are step-by-step instructions to installing and getting started using Sage for the examples and exercises in this book.1 1. Go to http://www.sagemath.org/download/ 2. You have two options: a. Building from source: If you are well versed in compilers and building software, you can build from source. Select this option. b. Installing Binaries: You can install precompiled binaries, the process is different on several different operating systems. • Linux Download the Linux binaries, download, and follow the instructions in the README file. • Mac OS X Download the Mac OS X binaries and follow the instructions in the README file. • Windows: With Windows the process is a little bit more complicated. At the time of printing the only complete option for Sage on Windows requires running ubuntu in a virtual machine. The directions are contained in the windows section of the download. However, copied here for reference they are: i) Download the VMWare player: http://www.vmware.com/products/player/ (this is a free download for students / educators.) ii) Download the VMWare image from the Sage website and follow the directions in the README file. There is also a native port of windows, in progress, at the time of this printing. You can try it and see if it works for your purposes at: http://windows.sagemath.com 3. Once you have Sage installed, On Linux or Mac OS X you can just type Sage from a shell prompt and it will run the interpreter (if you installed the Sage script in the correct location, as in the README files.) On windows, you run Sage by starting the VMWare player to open the Sage virtual hard drive. Once the VMWare player is started, you can use the player to enter data into the command line, you can SSH to your virtual machine (useful for copy and paste functionality) and use the notebook. 4. Sage also has notebook functionality, similar to that of Maple or Mathematica worksheets. This runs through the web browser. On Linux and Mac OS X, 1

Please note that Sage is an open source package that is constantly under development, and much functionality changes from release to release. If any of the steps in this section do not work, please check http://www.sagemath.org for new up-to-date information.

C.1 / GETTING STARTED WITH SAGE

C-3

you start the notebook by typing notebook() from the command prompt, or by running Sage with the -notebook argument. In the VMWare image, this is run by selecting notebook from the login options when the VMWare image starts up. 5. If you wish to execute the Sage examples from Appendix B, you can now download the relevant Sage files.2 If you are using a Linux or Mac OS X machine, then you just download your files to a folder and run Sage to access them. However, if you are using the VMWare player then you need to get the files into your virtual machine. This can be done using the shared folder’s option in VMWare player, or copying the files using wget or scp from inside the virtual machine. You can access the underlying Ubuntu operating system in the Sage virtual machine by selecting the manage option when the VMWare image starts up. 6. As mentioned in step 3, Sage is an interpreted language, and you interact with it through a prompt. However you can also write batch scripts. These files have the suffix .sage and each line is a line that you would type into the interpreter. You can load these into the interpreter by using the “load” and “attach” commands. The command “load” runs the file once. On the other hand, the command “attach” monitors the underlying .sage file and reloads it if there are any changes. 7. The Sage interpreter keeps track of your underlying path, running attach and load is relative to this path. You can change the current path by using ‘cd’ like you would in a shell. Suppose that you want to run a file example.sage, you can do this by typing: load example.sage While the current directory of the Sage interpreter is the directory containing example.sage. There is significantly more information and documentation on Sage and how to run it at http://www.sagemath.org/doc. This page includes a tutorial, a reference manual, a Sage programmer’s manual, and an installation guide. See this documentation for the most up to date information on Sage. Even more documentation and help is available at http://www.sagemath.org/help.html. Particularly worthwhile is the downloadable book Sage for Newbies. Sage is a rich, powerful facility, and the amount of documentation may seem overwhelming. However, if you study the examples in Appendix B and the discussion in this section and the next, you should be able to write Sage code to solve the problems with little reference to the documentation. Furthermore, any time devoted to learning Sage is a worthwhile investment, because Sage is a general-purpose mathematical tool that you will be able to use throughout your academic and professional career.

2

All of the Sage code in Appendix B is available online at this book’s Web site in .sage files, so that you can load and execute the programs if you wish. See Preface for access information.

C-4

APPENDIX C / SAGE EXERCISES

C.2 PROGRAMMING WITH SAGE The following is a basic introduction to Sage programming. Sage is a collection of open source mathematics packages that are loaded into a Python interpreter. Input to Sage is lightly preprocessed and sent to a Python interpreter. Thus, all programming in Sage is essentially just Python programming. Readers familiar with Python can skip much of this section, however Sage does modify the Python environment some, so reading some of the sections especially about numeric data types may be useful. The following are some of the basic Sage programming constructs.3

Input to the Interpreter Python is an interpreted language, so you can interact with the program line by line. Python is object-oriented, so as long as you are not using built in data types, you can use the following technique to learn about the member functions and variables of the class you are working with. Suppose foo is a variable of FooClass type, then typing foo., ( means, hit tab) will auto complete. If you begin typing the name of a variable, hitting tab will list all members that start with what you have already typed, if there is only one such member, it will autocomplete. Suppose foo has a member bar, to learn about this member, you can type foo.bar? and hit enter, this will display documentation on the function bar if it exists. You can also type foo.bar?? and hit enter to display the documentation and the source code. You can also use the print function to try to print a Sage object. So if foo is some variable, the expression print foo will try to convert foo into a string and print it. Also the function type(foo) will return the type of the variable foo, which is also useful.

Data Types One basic data type is Str. This is the built-in data type for strings in Python. They are entered into the interpreter by putting a literal string in single quotes '' or double quotes "". These are sequential, and can be accessed as such. For example if foo = 'foo', then foo[0] = 'f' and foo[1]='o'. Sage provides the following numeric data types. • int: This is the built-in, fixed precision signed integer data type of Python. This is the default data type used to access sequential data (like tuples and lists) as well as the default loop counter. • long: This is the built-in, arbitrary precision integer data type of Python. If an operation on operands of type int overflows, the result will be a long. • Integer: This is a Sage data type that implements arbitrary precision integers. This is the default type ascribed to integers typed into the Sage interpreter. The object for the integers is ZZ. Variables of type int or long can be cast to an Integer as follows, if foo is an int or a long then ZZ(foo) casts foo to an Integer. (Integer(foo) will work as well.) 3

Note that Sage does change from release to release, so be sure to check http://www.sagemath.org/doc for the most up to date documentation.

C.2 / PROGRAMMING WITH SAGE

C-5

• Rational: This is the Sage data type that implements arbitrary precision rational numbers. If you type something like 2/3 into the Sage interpreter, this is the default type that the value will be given. The object for the rational numbers is QQ. Variables of type int, long, or Integer can be cast to a Rational as follows, if foo is such a numeric type, then QQ(foo) casts foo to a Rational. (Rational(foo) will work as well.) This is important to bear in mind, as in many programming languages 2/3 would evaluate to the integer 0. Two important sequential data types in Sage are list and tuple. The list type is the built-in Sage type for lists (arrays). The syntax for lists is an open and close square brackets, with items separated by commas. • The empty list is foo = [] • A list of the first three integers is foo = [1, 2, 3] • A list of some different types is foo = [‘2/3’, 2, 2/3] The first element is a string, the second is an Integer and the third is a Rational. The function range([start,] end) returns the list of integers from start through end-1. If start is omitted 0 is assumed. Also, you can initiate a list with a variable number of arguments explicitly by doing: foo = [ for j in xrange(M)] Where M is some integral data type, and is some Python expression that is allowed to reference the loop counter j. You access list elements by square brackets after the name of the variable, so foo[i] returns the ith element of a list. Lists are mutable, so you can assign values to the elements as follows: foo[i] = bar. You can also extend lists by using the append function, as in: foo.append(bar). You can get a length of a list with the built in function len(...), by calling it as len(foo). The tuple data type is the built in Sage type for immutable lists of elements. They syntax is like that for lists but parenthesis are used instead of square brackets. As with the examples for lists: • The empty tuple is foo = () • A tuple of the first three integers is foo = (1, 2, 3) • A tuple of some different types is foo = (‘2/3’, 2, 2/3)

C-6

APPENDIX C / SAGE EXERCISES

Tuples are accessed just as lists, so foo[i] returns the ith element of the tuple foo. As mentioned, tuples are immutable, so you cannot assign values to the elements after the tuple has been initialized.

Mathematical Operators The usual mathematical operators work in Sage. So, + , - , and * all work as you would expect. As noted above / performs division, but if the operands are integers it promotes them to rational numbers. The % operator performs modular reduction a % n is the remainder of a divided by n, for a and n integral data types. You can accomplish integral division as follows. If a is an integer, and you want the quotient and remainder after division by n, a.quo_rem(n) returns a tuple (q,r) where q is the quotient and r is the remainder. One of the major differences between Sage and Python is that the operator ¿ is not xor, as it is in Python. Rather, this means exponentiation. So a^n is a raised to the nth power. Alternately, this can be performed with the ** operator as a**n.

Control Statements If-else statements are written as follows: if : elif : else: Where indicates a valid statement in Python that evaluates to a Boolean expression, and indicates a multi-line block of Python code. It is important to note that with if statements (and also loop statements), the blocks of code must be indented, and the subsequent control statement must return to the original level of indentation. This is how the interpreter knows how to match if elif and else statements. In the if and elif statements, the Boolean expression must be followed by a semicolon. For else statements the semicolon immediately follows the keyword else. For the Boolean statements the standard operators of Boolean (and, or) are spelled out exactly as ‘and’ and ‘or’. Meaning for a number less than 0 and greater than 3 one writes: (x < 0) or (3 < x). For a number greater than 0 and less than 3 one writes: (0 < x) and (x < 3). The syntax for a for loop is as follows: for in : In Python are sequential objects like lists or tuples (there are some others as well, but lists and tuples are the main case.) For example

C.2 / PROGRAMMING WITH SAGE

C-7

for A in foo: print A prints the list of the elements in the list foo. Or for j in range(10): print j prints the integers from 1 to 10. The most common exception to using a list or a tuple as an iterable object is iterating through a list of integers using the xrange function. For example: for j in xrange(len(foo)): print ‘j=’, j, foo[j] prints a list of the indices and the elements at that index in the array. The xrange function allows loops to iterate through the integers [0, 1, ..., (len(foo)–1)] without instantiating the list as the function range would. The function xrange takes the parameters are the same as the range function does, the only difference is the output. While loops have the syntax: while : For example: while ( x < 1): y = y + x x = x/2 With both while and for loops, the break keyword cause execution of the loop to stop, and continue causes control to begin executing at the next iteration of the loop.

Functions Creating functions is very easy: def (< comma separated list of parameters>): Just like control statements, the body of the function must be delimited by indentation. The return statement specifies the value of the function to return. If

C-8

APPENDIX C / SAGE EXERCISES

the function does not have a return statement, or the end of the body of the function is reached without hitting a return statement, then the function returns the value None. For example, the following function: def f1(x, y): if (0 == x % 2): z = x^2 + x + 1 else: z = x-y return y For more information on Python programming, see http://www.Python.org/.At this time Sage uses Python 2.x, and not Python 3.0 or higher.This is not likely to change, but as the differences in the language are significant, if the examples here are not working, it may be worth checking out if the underlying version of Python that Sage uses has changed.

C.3 CHAPTER 2: CLASSICAL ENCRYPTION 2.1 Implement Sage functions that perform affine cipher encryption/decryption, given a key that consists of a pair of integers a, b, both in {1, 2, . . , 25} with a not divisible by 2 or 13. The functions should work on strings, and leave any nonalphabetic characters unchanged. Show the operation of your functions on an example. See problem 2.1 in Chapter 2 for a definition of an affine cipher. 2.2 This question is to implement some functions useful to performing classical cipher attacks. a. Implement a Sage function that performs frequency attacks on a monoalphabetic substitution ciphers. This function should take a ciphertext string, compute a histogram of the incidence of each letter (ignoring all non alphabet characters), and return a list of pairs (letter, incidence percentage) sorted by incidence percentage. b. Implement a Sage function that takes a partial mono-alphabetic substitution and a ciphertext and returns a potential plaintext. The partial mono-alphabetic substitution should be specified as follows: As a 26 character string where the character at position i is the substitution of ith character of the alphabet, OR an underscore ‘_’ if the corresponding substitution is unknown. The potential plaintext should be the ciphertext with values specified by the mono-alphabetic substitution replaced by the lower-case plaintext. If the corresponding character is unknown (i.e. ‘_’ in the monoalphabetic substitution cipher) print the cipher text as an uppercase character.) c. Use your functions from (a) and (b) to decrypt the following ciphertext: “ztmn pxtne cfa peqef kecnp cjt tmn zcwsenp ontmjsw ztnws tf wsvp xtfwvfefw, c feb fcwvtf, xtfxevqea vf gvoenwk, cfa aeavxcwea wt wse rntrtpvwvtf wscw cgg lef cne xnecwea eymcg.” 2.3 Implement Sage functions to perform encryption/decryption with 2 * 2 Hill Cipher. The key should be an invertible Sage matrix over the integers mod 26.

C.4 / BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD

C-9

Do not just call the built in Sage functionality for the Hill cipher. Show the operation of your functions on a plaintext of your choice. 2.4 Implement a Sage function to perform encryption/decryption with an m * m Hill Cipher.The key should be an invertible Sage matrix over the integers mod 26. Do not just call the built in Sage functionality for the Hill cipher. Show the operation of your function on the functions you write on a plaintext of your choice.You may use any functions you wrote for the previous question to answer this question. 2.5 This question is to implement and use a known plaintext attack on the Hill cipher. You may use functions from examples or previous questions, but do not use the built in Sage functions for the Hill Cipher. [Hint: The built in functions for MatrixSpace and FreeModule objects may be useful, but if they are too confusing to use, do not get caught up on them.] a. Implement a known plaintext attack on the hill cipher. b. Use the function that you wrote in part (a) to attack the following plaintext/ ciphertext pairs: plaintext = "friday" ciphertext = "izrvey" plaintext = "diamondisinstatue" ciphertext = "zisxlhdiwdingthyqq" plaintext = "thesecretdietistofuhotdogs" ciphertext = "qbayzelwilksscipqps vkafvssyy"

C.4 CHAPTER 3: BLOCK CIPHERS AND THE DATA ENCRYPTION STANDARD 3.1 This problem references the Sage implementation from Appendix B.3 Example 1. a. Copy the diagram of the function fK of the Simplified DES Encryption details (Figure G.3 in Appendix G) and label each wire with the corresponding variable name from the Sage code that implements SDES Encryption. b. Copy the diagram of the Simplified DES Encryption Key Generation (Figure G.2) and label each wire with the corresponding variable names from the Sage code that implements the SDES Key Generation. 3.2 a. Let temp_block denote a Sage variable that contains the output of the first application of function fK (fK in the Sage example code) while encrypting with Simplified DES. Using subroutines from the example Sage code, write Sage code to recover the input block passed to Simplified DES Decrypt. That is, reverse the first steps in Simplified DES Encrypt. You may assume that you have the first round key in a variable K1. b. Using subroutines from the Sage example code for Simplified DES, write a function to compute Simplified DES Decrypt. 3.3 a. Consider EP, the expansion permutation. Find an inverse contraction permutation. That is, find a function that takes 8 bits down to 4 and inverts EP. Note that these are not unique. Implement this function EPinv as in the example Sage code. b. Take the function f_K from the example Sage code and modify it so that instead of calling the SBoxes, it calls EPinv after the round key is XORed in. Rename the modified function f_K_NoSBox. c. Modify the functions SDESEncrypt [see example Sage code], and SDESDecrypt (see question 3.1] so that they then call f_K_NoSBox (from

C-10

APPENDIX C / SAGE EXERCISES

part b). Call the new functions SDESEncryptNoSBox and SDESDecryptNoSBox. d. Do these new functions function as Encrypt/Decrypt functions of each other? (i.e. will SDESDecryptNoSBox give you back the input of SDESEncryptNoSBox, given that they are using the same key)? e. Does SDESEncryptNoSBox make a good Encryption function, why or why not? Hint: Can you mount a known or chosen plaintext attack on the functions you wrote in part (d)?

C.5 CHAPTER 4: BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS 4.1 In the examples functions for the Euclidean and extended Euclidean GCD, the first input must be greater than the second. Furthermore, each argument must be a positive integer. Implement these functions such that these assumptions need not be made about the input. Also for the extended Euclidean GCD, if the gcd of a and b is 1, return a inverse mod b and b inverse mod a (Your Sage functions may call the example Sage functions, or you may write these implementations from scratch. Do not merely call the built in Sage functionality.) Show your functions work on a few inputs. 4.2 Suppose that polynomials are represented by lists of coefficients, where the coefficient at index i is the coefficient of xi. Using this representation, write Sage functions that perform the following polynomial operations (don’t just call the underlying Sage functions): a. Scalar multiply, given a scalar c, and a polynomial f, computes c f. b. Addition, given two polynomials f, g, computes h = f + g. c. Subtraction, given two polynomials f, g computes h = f - g. d. Multiplication, given two polynomials f, g computes h = f*g. e. For each of the above functions that you wrote show the output of the function on 1 set of inputs. 4.3 Either using the functions you wrote in the preceding question or the built in polynomial arithmetic in Sage, as well as, either the given polynomial extended gcd, or the built in Sage extended gcd, implement a four function calculator for GF(24) with modulus x4 + x + 1. Consider elements of GF(24) to be degree 4 (fixed precision) polynomials in the primitive element, i.e., GF(24), elements are represented by lists of 4 binary values. You may use the underlying polynomial functions in Sage, or any functions you wrote for the previous questions. a. addition b. scalar multiplication c. multiplication d. inversion 4.4 This question asks about using the Sage functionality for computing in Finite Fields. a. Use Sage to create a finite field with 17 elements. In this field calculate: The difference: 13 - 16

#

C.5 / BASIC CONCEPTS IN NUMBER THEORY AND FINITE FIELDS

C-11

The sum: 11 + 10 The quotient:1/2 The product: 3 * 8 The multiplicative inverse of: 5 b. Use Sage to create a finite field with 32 elements. Let 'a' denote the primitive element. In this field Calculate: The difference: (a¿2 + a) - (a + 1) The multiplicative inverse of: a¿4 + a + 1 The quotient (a¿2 + 1)/(a¿4 + a + 1) c. Use Sage to create a finite field with 5¿3 elements. Let 'alpha' denote the primitive element. In this field Calculate: The sum: (3*alpha¿2 + 4*alpha) - (alpha¿2 + 3) The multiplicative inverse of: (alpha + 1) The product: 1alpha + 22*1alpha + 32 d. Use Sage to create a finite field with 503,777,509 elements. In this field calculate: The quotient: 123,456,789/456,555,333 The multiplicative inverse of : 987,654,321 The difference: 789,123,456 - 444,333,111 4.5 This question is to use the built-in gcd functionality of Sage. a. Using the gcd functionality in Sage, compute the greatest common divisor of 24 and 300 4567 and 4731907 100 and 1015 b. Using the xgcd functionality in Sage, compute the extended greatest common divisor 36 and 624 4321 and 9226177 45 and 12345 c. Find two numbers, both greater than 100,000 that have a greatest common divisor of exactly 3. Show the output of Sage that verifies your answer is correct. 4.6 The purpose of this question is to show familiarity with the Sage polynomial arithmetic functionality. a. Use Sage to initialize a polynomial ring over the field with two elements. Let f = x¿2 + 1 and g = x¿3 + x¿2 + x + 1. Compute f + g, f *g, the quotient and remainder of g divided by f, and the greatest common divisor of f and g. b. Use Sage to initialize a polynomial ring over the field with 31 elements. Let f = x¿5 + 17*x + 13 and g = x¿3 + 10*x¿2 + 24*x + 3. Compute f - g, f*g, the quotient and remainder of dividing f by g, and the greatest common divisor of f and g. c. Use the GF( Á ) function to initialize a finite field with 16 elements, and suppose that a is the generator of this field. Then initialize a polynomial ring over this field. Compute the quotient and remainder of dividing (a¿3 + a + 1)x¿4 + a*x¿2 + (a¿2 + a)*x + (a + 1) by (a)x¿2 + (a¿3 + 1)*x + a¿2

C-12

APPENDIX C / SAGE EXERCISES d. In Sage initialize a degree 3 extension of the finite field with 5 elements

with defining polynomial x¿3 + x + 4. Further suppose that ’theta’ is the primitive element of this field. Compute 1/theta.

C.6 CHAPTER 5: ADVANCED ENCRYPTION STANDARD 5.1 The purpose of this question is to become more familiar with the algorithm for generating the Simplified AES S-Box. Each part of this problem is to write one part of the algorithm in Sage, and in the last part put them all together. The construction closely follows the description of the algorithm specification in the text. a. Consider the positive integers between 0 and 15 (inclusive) as 4 bit strings, so that 3 is 1100 (this ordering is known as little endian.) Define the mapping from {0, 1, 2, Á , 15} to GF(24) by mapping the element with bit string b0 b1 b2 b3 to the element b0 + b1a + b2a2 + b3a3 of GF(24). The following snippet of Sage code sets F to the finite field with two elements L the finite field with 16 elements (extension of F with modulus a4 + a + 1) and primitive element a (we use a here because a is a special value in Sage.) And V is the vector space of dimension 4 over F (you can think of this as 4 bit strings with addition defined on them.) F = GF(2); L. = GF(2 ¿ 4); V = L.vector_space(); As in the example code for Simplified AES we can map a bit list b to the corresponding element of L by L(V(b)). Write a Sage function that maps a positive integer in {0, 1, 2, Á , 15} to an element of L. (Hint: If x is a Sage Integer, z.bits() is a little-endian list of the bits of z, however z only has as many elements as the bit length of z. So, for example if z is 0, this function returns an empty list. However, L(V(b)) only works if b is a bit list of length 4. You will have to work around this.) b. Use the function from part (a) to write a Sage function to initialize a 2 dimensional array (either a list of lists or a matrix over L) so that the element at position (r, c) is the element of GF(24) mapped to by 4r + c. c. Write a function that takes M, a 2-dimensional array of elements in L = GF(24) (either a list of lists or a matrix over L) and maps each nonzero element to its inverse and 0 to 0. That is, your function should return M', the 2-dimensional array of elements in L where the element at row r and column c of M' is the inverse of Mrc (or 0 if Mrc = 0). (Hint: If z is a nonzero element of L, in Sage, z¿(-1) is the multiplicative inverse of z. If z is zero, this will raise an error.) d. Write a function that takes a 2-dimensional array of elements in L = GF(24) and for each element converts it to an element of V and applies the Linear transformation in step 4 of the S-Box generation algorithm. Then returns the resulting 2-dimensional array. The Sage code to initialize A and b would be:

C-13

C.7 / PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS

A = Matrix(F, [ [ 1, 0, 1, 1], [ 1, 1, 0, 1], [ 1, 1, 1, 0], [ 0, 1, 1, 1] ]); b = V([1, 0, 0, 1]); And the linear equation is A*v + b. Then take the resulting element of V and map it back to an element of L (if v is an element of V, then L(v) is the corresponding element of L.) (Hint: If z is an element of L and v = z.vector(), the linear transformation as is defined in the algorithm expects that the bits of v are reverse of how Sage orders them. To deal with this, you will either have to reverse the bits of v, or appropriately modify the A matrix.) e. Use the functions you just wrote to write a function that initializes the SBox matrix for simplified DES. Check your answer versus the SBoxes of the simplified AES function in the book. 5.2 In the previous question we computed the SBox for Simplified DES. There are multiple ways to compute the inverse SBox. You can find each element of L in the SBox and figure out which element maps to it. Or you can reverse each of the steps in the previous algorithm. Write a Sage function to calculate the inverse SBox matrix. 5.3 The algorithm for computing the Simplified AES SBox table does exactly that, it computes a table. However, this algorithm shows us how we can compute the SBox directly, without doing a table look up. Write a Sage function to compute the Simplified AES SBox and Inverse SBox directly. Meaning, write functions that take elements of L and return the element of L that the SBox table (or Inverse SBox) lookup would map to. (This is more than a textbook exercise. Some people consider the AES SBox lookups to be insecure because they can leak information through the cache. Such vulnerabilities are called Side Channels. Computing SBoxes without lookups is one way to mitigate this type of attack. Although there is a conditional statement in this SBox computation, which could be exploited by a side channel attack.)

C.7 CHAPTER 6: PSEUDORANDOM NUMBER GENERATION AND STREAM CIPHERS 6.1 (With regard to the code for this exercise, see www.pearsonhighered.com/ stallings) Breaking Blum Blum Shub is provably (polynomial time) equivalent to factoring. While this question does not prove this, it does show how to create a Sage function that gives considerable evidence for this fact. Specifically, we will show that given a function that gives you the previous Blum Blum Shub state from a Blum Blum Shub state, that we can write a probabilistic program that factors. The following function will break Blum Blum Shub (for small N): def previous_BBS_state(state): r""" This function returns the BlumShub state.

previous

Blum-

C-14

APPENDIX C / SAGE EXERCISES

Note that this is a toy function and will only work on small N. """ N = state[0]; R = IntegerModRing(N); X = R(state[1]); if (not X.is_square()): print "Not a valid state." return None

Blum-Blum-Shub

RNG

return [N, X.sqrt().lift()]; a. The first part of the problem is to notice that if you have integers x, y such

that x Z ;y (mod N) and (x2 - y2) = 0 mod N, then the usual difference of squares equation gives that (x2 - y2) = (x - y)(x + y). And so we can hope that gcd (x - y, N) or gcd (x + y, N) yield a nontrivial factor of N. Write a Sage function that takes x,y such that xZ ;y (mod N) and (x2 - y2) = 0 mod N and tries to find a nontrivial factor of N. b. Using the function you wrote in part (a) and the supplied function previous_BBS_state, write a function that takes a number N (that is a product of two primes p, q both congruent to 3 mod 4) and returns the factors p and q. [Hint: you have to create your own BBS state, so you will have to choose your square. How do you choose a square such that you know you have x, y?] 6.2 Write a Sage function that takes 3 successive outputs from a linear congruential RNG, as well as the modulus m of the internal state, that returns a and c OR indicates that it cannot find these values. Generate a linear congruential state, and 3 successive outputs and show your function working. 6.3 The purpose of this function is to become more familiar with the ANSI X9.17 PRNG. For this problem you may use any solutions to other problems, or example code. a. Implement a function for a variant of the ANSI X9.17 PRNG using the simplified DES block encrypt, instead of two key triple-DES. Your function should take the current state (the seed, V, and the date/time, DT, variables as 8 bit long bit lists) as well as the SDES key as a 10 bit long bit list. Note that because this function uses SDES, instead of two key triple DES, you do not need two keys. b. Implement a function for ANSI X9.17 PRNG using the simplified AES block encrypt. Your function should take the current state (the seed, V, and the date/time, DT, variables as 16 bit long bit lists) as well as a key as 16 bit long bit lists. Note that because this function uses SAES, instead of two key triple DES, you do not need two keys.

C.8 CHAPTER 8: NUMBER THEORY 8.1 Write a Sage function to implement Euler’s Totient function [Hint: You may find the Sage “factor” function useful here.]

C.8 / NUMBER THEORY

C-15

8.2 Note that the sample code for the Miller Rabin test returns True if the test finds, conclusively, that n is composite, otherwise the function returns False to indicate that the function did not find anything conclusively. As noted in this book, we can decide with high probability if n is prime or composite if we run this test multiple times. This exercise is to implement a version of the Miller Rabin test that does so. a. Implement a function that performs the “witness procedure” of Miller Rabin, that is, the code that checks whether or not an integer in {1, 2, Á , n - 1} has the specified properties. b. Use the function that you wrote for part (a) to implement a function that

takes a positive integer n( 7 2), and a list of integers in {1, 2, Á , n - 1} and performs the “witness procedure” on each one. If any one of these determines that a is composite, then return False (to indicate a is composite) otherwise return True, to indicate that (with high probability) n is prime. 8.3 Previously we saw that factoring can be reduced to breaking Blum Blum Shub’s security. In this problem we will see the other direction, namely that Blum Blum Shub’s security can be broken by factoring. For this problem you may use the fact that finding a square root mod a prime is a solved problem. In fact if p K 3 (mod 4) and x is a square mod p then the square root of x is given by x(p + 1)/4 mod p. Either use this formula or the built in Sage functionality to compute square roots in a prime field to write a function that takes a Blum Blum Shub internal state, and the two prime factors p, q (both 3 mod 4) of the modulus, and outputs a list of at most 4 possibilities for the previous Blum Blum Shub State. Generate a Blum Blum Shub state (with your own p, q) and show that your function works. [Hint: use the CRT.] 8.4 Sage has a command "time" that works similar to "print." Specifically "time " runs the expression and displays some timing information.This exercise is to use this time command to try some experiments timing modular exponentiation with different parameters. For varying values of m and n (positive integers) generate a prime p at most 2m, and a random positive integer a less than p, then time calculating ModExp (a, e, p), for e = 2n and 2n - 1. (See Appendix B.7 Example 3.) For each different value of e run the experiment several times. Try this with at least two different values for (m, n). Be sure to try varying the sizes of these parameters drastically (i.e. on the order of 10s and 100s.) What do you notice? What does this tell you? [Hint: If you do the experiment correctly, you should make an observation that forms the basis for side channel attacks, a powerful type of attack on crypto systems.] 8.5 The purpose of this question is to show how to generalize the Square and Multiply Exponentiation method to different radixes besides 2. This approach to modular exponentiation is known as a “fixed window” exponentiation. a. Write a Sage function that, given an integer x, a modulus N, and a base b, computes a list of length b, where the ith element of the list is xi mod N. You may use the ModExp function or any other method to compute the exponentiation (but you don’t have to.) (See Appendix B.7 Example 3.) b. Write a Sage function that takes an integer x, an exponent e, a base b, and a modulus N. This function should compute a power table using the function you wrote in part (a) and then use it by using the base b expansion of e to

C-16

APPENDIX C / SAGE EXERCISES

determine where to index into the table. You may use modular exponentiation, but only to calculate yb mod N, for any integer y. c. Given that you use ModExp as a routine in the function you wrote in part (b) what can you conclude about the optimal base to use for modular exponentiation? 8.6 Suppose we want to create a Random Number Generator with hardness based on the Discrete Log problem. In this problem we will investigate such an RNG and show that it has some weaknesses. First, suppose that we have primes P, Q such that P = 2 Q + 1. Now suppose that we have two points X and Y with multiplicative order Q mod P. This means that XQ K YQ K 1 mod P. Let s[i] denote the value of the internal state at time i. We generate the following values as follows: The intermediate data value: t[i] = s[i] The next internal state s[i + 1] = Xt[i] mod P The output of the Generate function o[i] = Yt[i] mod P The following diagram shows the flow of the RNG.

#

Xt[i] mod P s[i + 1]/ s[i]

t[i]

Yt[i] mod P

o[i]

We will call this RNG the Dual DL RNG (for Dual Discrete Log Random Number Generator) For the following questions feel free to use Sage’s built in modular exponentiation functionality, the example function for modular exponentiation, or any functions from previous problems. a. Implement a Sage function that takes primes P, Q and integers X, Y of multiplicative order Q mod P and generates a random initial internal state s (an integer reduced mod Q). Have this function return a list with entries [P,Q,X,Y,s]. b. Implement a Sage function that takes as a parameter a five element list corresponding to the internal state initialized by the function you wrote for part (a). This function should generate a single block of output, and update the list parameter’s last element to correspond to the next RNG state. c. Suppose that we have P = 15116301544809716639, Q = 755815077240485 8319, X = 10655637283854386401, Y = 5886823825742381258, and furthermore we know that Xe K Y mod P, where e = 1534964830632783921. Find the positive integer f such that Yf K X mod P. [Hint: remember that XQ K 1 mod P. Find the positive integer f such that e f = 1 + k Q.] d. Now, using the values for P, Q, X, Y from part (c), write a Sage function that, given one output of the generate function (from part (b)) and gives the output from the next call to the generate function. Use the functions you wrote in part (a) and (b) to show that your function works. [Hint: What happens if you exponentiate the output of the generate function by the value you found in part (c)?] e. Write a version of the function that you wrote in part (b) that takes only P, Q, and X. Have it generate the value Y in a manner such that you know the

#

#

C.8 / NUMBER THEORY

8.7

8.8

8.9

8.10

C-17

positive integer f such Yf K X mod P. Your function should return a tuple (rngstate, f) where rngstate, is a valid rng state like the function from part (b) returns. f. Generalize your attack function from part (d) to work given a block of output, with the Y and f values you generated in part (e). g. How would you modify this RNG to overcome this problem? The example version of the Chinese Remainder Theorem has several inefficiencies. Observe that in the Chinese Remainder Theorem the first step is to initialize the M array, where the value of M[i] is the product of all the moduli except moduli[i]. This is performed at the beginning of every function call, which is somewhat inefficient, because it could just be done once, for a single set of moduli. Furthermore, the output of this function is larger than it needs to be, indeed, it need be no larger than the product of all the moduli. In this question, do not merely call built in Sage functions. a. Write a function to pre-compute the M array, it should also compute the product of all the moduli. b. Write a version of the CRT function that takes the precomputed M array and a list of residues. Make sure that the output of this function is no larger than it needs to be. The purpose of this question is to become more familiar with the Chinese Remainder Theorem functionality in Sage. Use Sage to compute the following questions about the CRT. a. Find a number that reduces to 3 and 6 modulo 10 and 17, respectively b. Find a number that reduces to 17, 89, 77, 65, and 100 modulo 23, 199, 503, 647, and 593, respectively c. Find a number that reduces to 98189, 78089, and 13418 mod 519787, 722299 and 166169, respectively. d. Compute the CRT basis of the moduli 100, 501, 999. e. Find three numbers that reduce mod the moduli 49, 99, 1003, and 33191 to i) 1,2,3,4 ii) 2,3,5,7 iii) 101, 99, 102, 98 f. Use Sage to compute an integer that is relatively prime to 1 through 5 modulo the first 5 primes, respectively. The purpose of this question is to become more familiar with the Sage functionality for modular exponentiation. Use Sage to compute: a. 123¿456 mod 789 b. 100¿797 mod 797 c. 15¿30 mod 1000 d. 111¿222 mod 987654321 e. 1217¿2833 mod 3836311 f. Compute N, a product of two primes, both greater than 1,000,000 and then compute The purpose of this function is to show how to use the Euler totient functionality built into Sage. Using the built-in functionality in Sage, compute the

C-18

APPENDIX C / SAGE EXERCISES

Euler totient function on the following inputs: a. 781 b. 10245 c. 110 d. Find an exponent x and one or two integers such that raising to the x power mod 547689 results in 1. Find at least one integer such that modular exponentiation with x and this modulus does not result in 1. e. Find an exponent x and one or two integers such that raising to the x power mod 999999 results in 1. Find at least one integer such that modular exponentiation with x and this modulus does not result in 1.

C.9 CHAPTER 9: PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY AND RSA 9.1 Use Sage to answer the following questions. Show all your Sage input/output: a. Suppose your RSA public key factors as p = 6569 and q = 8089, and the public exponent e is 11. Suppose you were sent the Ciphertext 28901722. Perform the RSA Decryption and recover the plaintext. b. Suppose that you want to encrypt the number 449 and send it to someone with public key N = 37617577, and e = 529 c. Suppose that you forgot your public exponent, but you know that the prime factors of your key’s modulus are 1723 and 5381 and your private exponent is 223. Find the public exponent. d. Use Sage to generate an RSA public/private key pair and perform an encryption and decryption. 9.2 Use Sage to solve the following problems: In part (a)-(c) determine if the following signatures are good or bad: a. N = 13962799 and e = 3 value to sign = 821 and signature = 8674413 b. N = 34300129 and e = 61 value to sign = 2478 and signature = 27535246 c. N = 5898461 and e = 23 value to sign = 419 and signature = 2607727 d. Suppose that you have an RSA modulus with prime factors p = 3181 and q = 2677 and the public exponent is 163. Calculate the signature of 521 and then verify it. 9.3 The purpose of this question is to implement RSA encrypt and decrypt functions with Sage. a. Implement an RSA key generation function. b. Implement an RSA encrypt function. c. Implement an RSA decrypt function. d. Show that your functions work by simulating an RSA encrypt and decrypt with them. 9.4 The purpose of this question is to implement Sage functions for creating and verifying RSA signatures. For these questions you may use any answers from previous questions. a. Implement a Sage function that takes an integer and an RSA private key and produces an RSA signature of it.

C.10 / OTHER PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

C-19

b. Implement a Sage function that takes an RSA signature and a hash value

and determines if the signature is valid. c. Show your functions work by simulating a sign and verify. Show at least one

sign and verify and also show an example that if the hash or signature are incorrect, your verify function correctly fails. (You may use the key generation function from an earlier problem.)

C.10 CHAPTER 10: OTHER PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS 10.1 For all of the following questions related to Diffie-Hellman show all of your Sage input and output. a. Suppose that you are Bob and you have agreed on the domain parameters p = 70849 and g = 2. Further suppose that Alice has sent the value X = 39674. Compute a secret value y and compute Y, and the shared secret. b. Suppose that Alice and Bob have agreed on the domain parameters p = 6779 and g = 3, further suppose that Alice chooses the secret value x = 384 and Bob chooses the secret value y = 152. Perform a simulated key exchange as in the example. c. Find a prime q and a prime p such that p = 2q + 1, find an element in the finite field with p elements that has multiplicative order q. Perform a simulated DH Secret Exchange as in the examples. 10.2 a. Implement a Sage function that takes a bound and returns 4 elements: p, q, g, and F. Satisfying: p and q are prime, such that p = 2*q + 1, g is an integer with multiplicative order q in the finite field with p elements, F is a Sage field object with p elements. b. Implement a Sage function that takes the output from your function in part (a) and returns the pair (X, x) where X = g¿x mod p and x is greater than 1 and less than q. c. Implement a Sage function that takes a public value from the other party in the DH key exchange and the secret value and returns the shared secret. d. Show an example key exchange with your functions from parts (a) - (c). 10.3 The purpose of this question is to use Sage to explore how solving the discrete logarithm can break DH. In Sage, if a is an element of a finite field, and g generates a, then if the order of the finite field is small enough a.log(g) will return the discrete log of g with respect to a. Use this functionality to solve the following problems. a. Suppose p = 499, g = 7, and X = 297. Find x such that X = g¿x. b. Suppose p = 863, g = 5, X = 543, and Y = 239. Find x and y such that X = g¿x and Y = g¿y. c. Suppose p = 7589, g = 2, X = 6075 and Y = 1318. Find the shared secret value. 10.4 Recall the Dual DL PRNG (Problem 8.6). There is an actual crypto algorithm, called the Dual EC DL PRNG, where instead of an element in a multiplicative group mod a prime and exponentiation, we consider a point on an elliptic curve over a prime order finite field and scalar multiplication (see NIST SP-800-90,

C-20

APPENDIX C / SAGE EXERCISES

Recommendation for Random Number Generation Using Deterministic Random Bit Generators.) We need to define some auxiliary functions: • x(P): maps the x-coordinate of an elliptic curve point, P, to the integer the smallest positive integer that maps to x mod P. • LSBm(a): returns the least significant m bits of integer a. And we also denote the following values: • p: a prime, with n bits. • E: an elliptic curve over a finite field with p elements, given by equation y2 = x3 + ax + b. • P: a point on E, with prime order q (for maximum security q should be roughly the same size as p.) • Q: a point in the cyclic subgroup of E generated by P. At the beginning of iteration i we have internal state s[i], and we define the following values: 1. t[i] = s[i] 2. s[i + 1] = x(t[i] P) 3. r[i] = x(t[i] Q) 4. o[i] = LSBn - 8 (r[i]) Here o[i] is the output of the ith iteration block, and s[i + 1] The following diagram shows the flow for generating one block of output with this Crypto Algorithm.

#

#

#

x1t[i] P2 s[i + 1]/ s[i]

t[i]

#

x1t[i] Q2

r[i]

LSBn - 81r[i]2

o[i]

The following problems outline a similar problem with this algorithm as the one described in Problem 8.6. a. Implement a Sage function to generate a single output block from this algorithm (Your function should take an internal state represented as a list with the following elements [E,P,Q,si], where E is a Sage Elliptic Curve object, P is a point on E, with prime order q, and Q is a point on E, generated by Q. b. Write a Sage function that takes an output of this PRNG (i.e., the x coordinate of a point with the top 8 bits truncated off) and returns the possible values for R = t[i] Q that could have generated that output [Hint: try the is_x_coordinate function on Elliptic Curve objects.] c. Suppose you have E defined by y ¿ 2 = x ¿ 3 + 2x + 4, P = (42,980956284 88211854), Q = (6396452788131036613,9671497098832291002), and you know that the P has order q = 1227273995918533091 and also Q = 99689 P. Write a Sage function that takes an output from one iteration of this function and returns a list of the possible next internal states.

#

#

C.10 / OTHER PUBLIC-KEY CRYPTOSYSTEMS

C-21

d. Suppose you know that o[i] = 58246156843038996, and o[i + 1] =

10.5

10.6

10.7

10.8

64511473570997445, use the fact that you have two subsequent outputs to determine the possible internal states that could have generated these two outputs. For all of the following questions show your Sage input/output. a. Compute the order of the curve defined by y2 = x3 + 7*x + 25 over the finite field with 47 elements. b. On the curve defined by y2 + x*y = x3 + x over GF(28) compute the inverse of the point (1,1). c. On the curve defined by y2 + y = x3 + x2 + x + 1 over the finite field with 701 elements, find a generator and show its order. d. On the curve defined by y2 = x3 + 4187*x + 3814 over finite field of size 6421 compute the sum of the points (3711,373) and (4376,2463). e. On the elliptic curve defined by y2 = x3 + 3361*x + 6370 over finite field of size 8461 compute 1001 times the point (1735, 3464). f. On the elliptic curve defined by y2 = x3 + 1800*x + 1357 over finite field of size 8191, let P1 = (1794, 1318) and P2 = (3514, 409), compute the sum of 13 times P1 plus 28 times P2. In this problem, use the domain parameters. E is the elliptic curve defined by y2 = x3 + 8871*x + 7063 over the finite field with order 70177. The generator point G = (49359,30149) has order 70393. Show your Sage input/output. a. Suppose you are Bob and Alice has sent the point (10117, 64081) compute an integer y the point Y and the shared secret. b. Suppose that Alice chooses the secret value x = 2532 and Bob chooses the secret value y = 15276. c. Perform a full simulated secret agreement between Alice and Bob. The purpose of this question is to implement Sage functions to perform ECDH. a. Write a function that takes a curve, and a base point on the curve and generates the secret value x and the public value X as per ECDH. b. Write a function that takes a public value and a secret value and computes the shared secret. c. Assume that your domain parameters are: Elliptic Curve defined by y2 = x3 + 26484*x + 15456 over Finite Field of size 63709 q = 63839 G = (53819,6786) Show your functions work by simulating an ECDH key exchange. Recall that for cryptographic purposes, we use curves with prime order. The purpose of this question is to show why. Let E be the elliptic curve defined by y2 = x3 + 7489*x + 12591 over Finite Field of size 23431. This curve has order 23304. Let the base point be (20699, 19493). a. Compute 10 random multiples of this base point. What do you notice? b. Why is this bad? (Hint: What would happen if this was Alice or Bob’s public point?)

C-22

APPENDIX C / SAGE EXERCISES

C.11 CHAPTER 11: CRYPTOGRAPHIC HASH FUNCTIONS 11.1 The following describes a simple hash function: Choose p, q primes and compute N = pq. Choose g relatively prime to N and less than N. Then a number n is hashed as follows: H = gn mod N If there is an m that hashes to the same value as n, then gm K gn mod N so gm - n K 1 mod N which implies that m - n K 0 mod f(N) So breaking this amounts to finding a multiple of f(N), which is the hard problem in RSA. a. Write a function that takes a bitlength n and generates a modulus N of bitlength n and g less than N and relatively prime to it. b. Show the output of your function from part (a) for a few outputs. Using N, g, n as arguments write a function to perform the hashing. For parts (c) - (e) compute the simple hash: c. N = 600107, g = 154835, n = 239715 d. N = 548155966307, g = 189830397891, n = 44344313866 e. N = 604766153, g = 12075635, n = 443096843 f. Write a function that creates a collision given p and q. Show that your function works for a couple of examples.

C.12 CHAPTER 13: DIGITAL SIGNATURES 13.1 Use Sage to solve the following problems. For these questions assume that we are using DSA with domain parameters: p = 7,877,914,592,603,328,881 q = 44449 g = 2,860,021,798,868,462,661 Use these domain parameters to determine if the signatures are valid in parts (a) - (c). a. public key y = 3798043471854149631, hash value H = 59367, and signature (r,s) = (31019,4047) b. public key y = 1829820126190370021, hash value H = 77241, and signature (r,s) = (24646,43556) c. public key y = 4519088706115097514, hash value H = 48302, and signature (r,s) = (36283,32514) Perform a signing operation in parts (d)-(e).

C.12 / DIGITAL SIGNATURES

C-23

d. private key x = 8146, hash value H = 22655 e. private key x = 1548, hash value H = 32782

13.2 The purpose of this question is to implement a DSA signature verification function. a. Implement a function that takes domain parameters p, q, and g. Also, a Hash value H (in {1, 2, Á , p - 1}), a public key y, and a signature (r,s). b. Use the function you wrote in part (a) as well as the functions from the DSA examples to simulate a DSA signature and verify as in the examples.

This page intentionally left blank

GLOSSARY In studying the Imperium, Arrakis, and the whole culture which produced Maud’Dib, many unfamiliar terms occur. To increase understanding is a laudable goal, hence the definitions and explanations given below. —Dune, Frank Herbert Some of the terms in this glossary are from the Internet Security Glossary[RFC 2828]. These are indicated in the glossary by an asterisk. asymmetric encryption A form of cryptosystem in which encryption and decryption are performed using two different keys, one of which is referred to as the public key and one of which is referred to as the private key. Also known as public-key encryption. authentication* The process of verifying an identity claimed by or for a system entity. authenticator Additional information appended to a message to enable the receiver to verify that the message should be accepted as authentic. The authenticator may be functionally independent of the content of the message itself (e.g., a nonce or a source identifier) or it may be a function of the message contents (e.g., a hash value or a cryptographic checksum). avalanche effect A characteristic of an encryption algorithm in which a small change in the plaintext or key gives rise to a large change in the ciphertext. For a hash code, the avalanche effect is a characteristic in which a small change in the message gives rise to a large change in the message digest. bacteria Program that consumes system resources by replicating itself. birthday attack This cryptanalytic attack attempts to find two values in the domain of a function that map to the same value in its range. block chaining A procedure used during symmetric block encryption that makes an output block dependent not only on the current plaintext input block and key, but also on earlier input and/or output. The effect of block chaining is that two instances of the same plaintext input block will produce different ciphertext blocks, making cryptanalysis more difficult. block cipher A symmetric encryption algorithm in which a block of plaintext bits (typically 64 or 128) is transformed as a whole into a ciphertext block of the same length. byte

A sequence of 8 bits. Also referred to as an octet.

cipher An algorithm for encryption and decryption. A cipher replaces a piece of information (an element in plaintext) with another object with the intent to conceal meaning. Typically, the replacement rule is governed by a secret key. ciphertext The output of an encryption algorithm; the encrypted form of a message or data. code An unvarying rule for replacing a piece of information (e.g., letter, word, phrase) with another object not necessarily of the same sort. Generally, there is no intent to conceal

G-1

G-2

GLOSSARY

meaning. Examples include the ASCII character code (each character is represented by 7 bits) and frequency-shift keying (each binary value is represented by a particular frequency). computationally secure Secure because the time and/or cost of defeating the security are too high to be feasible. confusion A cryptographic technique that seeks to make the relationship between the statistics of the ciphertext and the value of the encryption key as complex as possible. This is achieved by the use of a complex scrambling algorithm that depends on the key and the input. conventional encryption Symmetric encryption. covert channel A communications channel that enables the transfer of information in a way unintended by the designers of the communications facility. cryptanalysis The branch of cryptology dealing with the breaking of a cipher to recover information or forging encrypted information that will be accepted as authentic. cryptographic checksum An authenticator that is a cryptographic function of both the data to be authenticated and a secret key. Also referred to as a message authentication code (MAC). cryptography The branch of cryptology dealing with the design of algorithms for encryption and decryption, intended to ensure the secrecy and/or authenticity of messages. cryptology The study of secure communications, which encompasses both cryptography and cryptanalysis. decryption The translation of encrypted text or data (called ciphertext) into original text or data (called plaintext). Also called deciphering. differential cryptanalysis A technique in which chosen plaintexts with particular XOR difference patterns are encrypted. The difference patterns of the resulting ciphertext provide information that can be used to determine the encryption key. diffusion A cryptographic technique that seeks to obscure the statistical structure of the plaintext by spreading out the influence of each individual plaintext digit over many ciphertext digits. digital signature An authentication mechanism that enables the creator of a message to attach a code that acts as a signature. The signature is formed by taking the hash of the message and encrypting the message with the creator’s private key. The signature guarantees the source and integrity of the message. digram A two-letter sequence. In English and other languages, the relative frequency of various digrams in plaintext can be used in the cryptanalysis of some ciphers. Also called digraph. discretionary access control* An access control service that enforces a security policy based on the identity of system entities and their authorizations to access system resources. This service is termed “discretionary” because an entity might have access rights that permit the entity, by its own volition, to enable another entity to access some resource.

GLOSSARY

G-3

divisor One integer is said to be a devisor of another integer if there is no remainder on division. encryption The conversion of plaintext or data into unintelligible form by means of a reversible translation, based on a translation table or algorithm. Also called enciphering. firewall A dedicated computer that interfaces with computers outside a network and has special security precautions built into it in order to protect sensitive files on computers within the network. It is used to service outside networks connections, especially the Internet and dial-in lines. greatest common divisor The greatest common divisor of two integers, a and b, is the largest positive integer that divides both a and b. One integer is said to divide another integer if there is no remainder on division. hash function A function that maps a variable-length data block or message into a fixedlength value called a hash code. The function is designed in such a way that, when protected, it provides an authenticator to the data or message. Also referred to as a message digest. honeypot A decoy system designed to lure a potential attacker away from critical systems. A form of intrusion detection. initialization vector A random block of data that is used to begin the encryption of multiple blocks of plaintext, when a block-chaining encryption technique is used. The IV serves to foil known-plaintext attacks. intruder An individual who gains, or attempts to gain, unauthorized access to a computer system or to gain unauthorized privileges on that system. intrusion detection system A set of automated tools designed to detect unauthorized access to a host system. Kerberos

The name given to Project Athena’s code authentication service.

key distribution center A system that is authorized to transmit temporary session keys to principals. Each session key is transmitted in encrypted form using a master key that the key distribution center shares with the target principal. logic bomb Logic embedded in a computer program that checks for a certain set of conditions to be present on the system. When these conditions are met, it executes some function resulting in unauthorized actions. mandatory access control A means of restricting access to objects based on fixed security attributes assigned to users and to files and other objects. The controls are mandatory in the sense that they cannot be modified by users or their programs. man-in-the-middle attack A form of active wiretapping attack in which the attacker intercepts and selectively modifies communicated data in order to masquerade as one or more of the entities involved in a communication. master key A long-lasting key that is used between a key distribution center and a principal for the purpose of encoding the transmission of session keys. Typically, the master keys are distributed by noncryptographic means. Also referred to as a key-encrypting key.

G-4

GLOSSARY

meet-in-the-middle attack This is a cryptanaltytic attack that attempts to find a value in each of the range and domain of the composition of two functions such that the forward mapping of one through the first function is the same as the inverse image of the other through the second function—quite literally meeting in the middle of the composed function. message authentication

A process used to verify the integrity of a message.

message authentication code (MAC) message digest

Cryptographic checksum.

Hash function.

modular arithmetic A kind of integer arithmetic that reduces all numbers to one of a fixed set [0, Á ,n - 1] for some number n. Any integer outside this range is reduced to one in this range by taking the remainder after division by n. mode of operation A technique for enhancing the effect of a cryptographic algorithm or adapting the algorithm for an application, such as applying a block cipher to a sequence of data blocks or a data stream. multilevel security A capability that enforces access control across multiple levels of classification of data. multiple encryption Repeated use of an encryption function with different keys to produce a more complex mapping from plaintext to ciphertext. nibble A sequence of four bits. nonce An identifier or number that is used only once. one-way function A function that is easily computed, but the calculation of its inverse is infeasible. password* A secret data value, usually a character string, that is used as authentication information. A password is usually matched with a user identifier that is explicitly presented in the authentication process, but in some cases, the identity may be implicit. plaintext The input to an encryption function or the output of a decryption function. primitive root If r and n are relatively prime integers with n 7 0 and if f(n) is the least positive exponent m such that rm K 1 mod n, then r is called a primitive root modulo n. private key One of the two keys used in an asymmetric encryption system. For secure communication, the private key should only be known to its creator. pseudorandom number generator A function that deterministically produces a sequence of numbers that are apparently statistically random. public key One of the two keys used in an asymmetric encryption system. The public key is made public and is to be used in conjunction with a corresponding private key. public-key certificate Consists of a public key plus a User ID of the key owner with the whole block signed by a trusted third party. Typically, the third party is a certificate authority (CA) that is trusted by the user community, such as a government agency or a financial institution. public-key encryption Asymmetric encryption.

GLOSSARY

G-5

public-key infrastructure (PKI) The set of hardware, software, people, policies, and procedures needed to create, manage, store, distribute, and revoke digital certificates based on asymmetric cryptography. relatively prime Two numbers are relatively prime if they have no prime factors in common; that is, their only common divisor is 1. replay attacks An attack in which a service already authorized and completed is forged by another “duplicate request” in an attempt to repeat authorized commands. residue When the integer a is divided by the integer n, the remainder r is referred to as the residue. Equivalently, r = a mod n. residue class All the integers that have the same remainder when divided by n form a residue class (mod n). Thus, for a given remainder r, the residue class (mod n) to which it belongs consists of the integers r, r ; n, r ; 2n, Á . RSA algorithm A public-key encryption algorithm based on exponentiation in modular arithmetic. It is the only algorithm generally accepted as practical and secure for public-key encryption. secret key The key used in a symmetric encryption system. Both participants must share the same key, and this key must remain secret to protect the communication. security attack* An assault on system security that derives from an intelligent threat; that is, an intelligent act that is a deliberate attempt (especially in the sense of a method or technique) to evade security services and violate the security policy of a system. security mechanism A process (or a device incorporating such a process) that is designed to detect, prevent, or recover from a security attack. security service A processing or communication service that enhances the security of the data processing systems and the information transfers of an organization. The services are intended to counter security attacks, and they make use of one or more security mechanisms to provide the service. security threat* A potential for violation of security, which exists when there is a circumstance, capability, action, or event that could breach security and cause harm. That is, a threat is a possible danger that might exploit a vulnerability. session key

A temporary encryption key used between two principals.

steganography Methods of hiding the existence of a message or other data. This is different than cryptography, which hides the meaning of a message but does not hide the message itself. stream cipher A symmetric encryption algorithm in which ciphertext output is produced bit-by-bit or byte-by-byte from a stream of plaintext input. symmetric encryption A form of cryptosystem in which encryption and decryption are performed using the same key. Also known as conventional encryption. trapdoor Secret undocumented entry point into a program used to grant access without normal methods of access authentication.

G-6

GLOSSARY

trapdoor one-way function A function that is easily computed, and the calculation of its inverse is infeasible unless certain privileged information is known. Trojan horse* A computer program that appears to have a useful function, but also has a hidden and potentially malicious function that evades security mechanisms, sometimes by exploiting legitimate authorizations of a system entity that invokes the program. trusted system A computer and operating system that can be verified to implement a given security policy. unconditionally secure Secure even against an opponent with unlimited time and unlimited computing resources. virtual private network Consists of a set of computers that interconnect by means of a relatively unsecure network and that make use of encryption and special protocols to provide security. virus Code embedded within a program that causes a copy of itself to be inserted in one or more other programs. In addition to propagation, the virus usually performs some unwanted function. worm Program that can replicate itself and send copies from computer to computer across network connections. Upon arrival, the worm may be activated to replicate and propagate again. In addition to propagation, the worm usually performs some unwanted function. zombie A program that secretly takes over another Internet-attached computer and then uses that computer to launch attacks that are difficult to trace to the zombie’s creator.

ACRONYMS 3DES AES AH ANSI CBC CC CESG CFB CMAC CRT DDoS DES DoS DSA DSS ECB ESP FIPS IAB IETF IP IPsec ISO ITU ITU-T IV

Triple Data Encryption Standard Advanced Encryption Standard Authentication Header American National Standards Institute Cipher Block Chaining Common Criteria Communications-Electronics Security Group Cipher Feedback Cipher-Based Message Authentication Code Chinese Remainder Theorem Distributed Denial of Service Data Encryption Standard Denial of Service Digital Signature Algorithm Digital Signature Standard Electronic Codebook Encapsulating Security Payload Federal Information Processing Standard Internet Architecture Board Internet Engineering Task Force Internet Protocol IP Security International Organization for Standardization International Telecommunication Union ITU Telecommunication Standardization Sector Initialization Vector

KDC LAN MAC MIC MIME MD5 MTU NIST NSA OFB PCBC PGP PKI PRNG RFC RNG RSA SET SHA SHS S/MIME SNMP SNMPv3 SSL TCP TLS UDP WAN

Key Distribution Center Local Area Network Message Authentication Code Message Integrity Code Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension Message Digest, Version 5 Maximum Transmission Unit National Institute of Standards and Technology National Security Agency Output Feedback Propagating Cipher Block Chaining Pretty Good Privacy Public Key Infrastructure Pseudorandom Number Generator Request for Comments Random Number Generator Rivest-Shamir-Adelman Secure Electronic Transaction Secure Hash Algorithm Secure Hash Standard Secure MIME Simple Network Management Protocol Simple Network Management Protocol Version 3 Secure Sockets Layer Transmission Control Protocol Transport Layer Security User Datagram Protocol Wide Area Network